1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

wes

munchester29 wrote: »

OK, let's use your logic then...

Your using your own logic here. The IDF are making accusations they can't prove, not me.

munchester29 wrote: »

Do you have proof that these Palestinians were trying to get fuel and supplies?

I made no such claim.

munchester29 wrote: »

Because if you don't then they must have been trying to attack Israel.

Were they? You have any proof they were? You btw, are the one who made this claim and can't provide independent verification.

munchester29 wrote: »

Now, since you are blaming Israel for killing innocent Palestinians, can you please prove they were innocent?

I am not the one making the accusation. Its up to you to prove they were about to attack and not me. You are unable to prove this.

What we do know is that Israel did attack, you own post proves this much.

munchester29

concussion wrote: »

It is amazing what one little word does - its a shame he didn't use it.
This is what he said

If he had said this (my bold) then he would have been right. As it stands they flat out denied using anything with phosphorous, legally or otherewise.

His exact words are enough, since people know what smoke curtains are and if they are legal or not:

“We do not use phosphorus, only "smoke curtains" (smoke screens)”

munchester29

wes wrote: »

Your using your own logic here. The IDF are making accusations they can't prove, not me.

Were they? You have any proof they were? You btw, are the one who made this claim and can't provide independent verification.

I am not the one making the accusation. Its up to you to prove they were about to attack and not me. You are unable to prove this.

What we do know is that Israel did attack, you own post proves this much.

Come on, people aren’t stupid.
If the Palestinians bother to blame Israel for everything they can think of, and they bother to deny each and every blame Israel puts at their door step, the fact that they didn’t deny this Israeli accusation is as good as admitting Israel is right, and these Palestinians were in fact digging a tunnel under the Israeli border to attack Israel.

concussion

munchester29 wrote: »

His exact words are enough, since people know what smoke curtains are and if they are legal or not:

“We do not use phosphorus, only "smoke curtains" (smoke screens)”

Most people haven't a clue of how smokescreens are made or the legalities of using WP in populated areas. He lied and got caught.

wes

munchester29 wrote: »

Come on, people aren’t stupid.

No they are not. Hence, why I am smart enough to ask for independent verification, which you can't provide.

munchester29 wrote: »

If the Palestinians bother to blame Israel for everything they can think of, and they bother to deny each and every blame Israel puts at their door step, the fact that they didn’t deny this Israeli accusation is as good as admitting Israel is right, and these Palestinians were in fact digging a tunnel under the Israeli border to attack Israel.

You have to prove your accusation. You have provided no proof. You instead come out with the above, which is proof of, well not a whole lot. Anyway, you wouldn't trust such claims in anyways.

So get back to me when you have independent verification of Israels claims. Good luck with that.

paulaa

munchester29 wrote: »

Well, that's the Israeli predicament - damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I would argue that the blame for all the suffering you described, while touching and sad, lies at the feet of Hamas.
If Hamas didn't keep attacking Israel and spending all the aid money they received on weapons, the Palestinians could have had a better quality of life and the road to peace would have been that much shorter.

The equation is simple- no Hamas attacks = no closed border posts, no Israeli attacks. Hamas can’t seem to stop attacking Israel though, so Israel has no choice – it is either going into Gaza again causing hundreds of casualties, or keeping a blockade.

Even recent events show this - Israel leaves Gaza again and ends its operation – Hamas responds by attacking an Israeli patrol a few days later, killing an Israeli soldier.

As for the settler movement:
There were about 8500 settlers altogether in the Gaza area, so I doubt 12,000 of them moved anywhere.
Most of the settlers which were evicted of their homes are now staying in caravan settlements within Israel.
Some, I’m sure, have gone to the settlements in the west bank, but they did so under their rights as free citizens of Israel, not because of government policy or instructions. This did not result in building of new settlements.

There's no damned if they do, damned if they don't. They do exactly as they like, break agreements, ignore all requests to comply with guidelines and resolutions that other countries try to adhere to, ignore the human rights of anyone other than their own and lie and deceive, even those who help them like the US.Pardon me if I have no sympathy for a settlers living in caravans, when many thousands of Gazans are trying to live in the rubble of their houses

You can blame Hammas all you like but the majority of the blame has to lie with Israel. Look at their treatment of Abbas, a man who could not even get a permit to attend a meeting of Arab States a couple of weeks ago. The PA were supposed to be the authority in the West Ban and still the people have no freedoms and are still subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment.There are thousands of people, including children as young as 10 being held without charge in Israeli prisons and many more who have disappeared with trace. The only difference between the WB is that they are not deprived of food and medicine but are still basically prisoners with very little rights.
Hammas do not trust the Israelis, simple as that and they have 60 years of experience to prove that they have a point.

You very conveniently forget the siege of Gaza which even now the Israelis show no signs of lifting. I would be a tad annoyed if I was forced to live under those conditions and I can understand (not condone) why Hammas fire rockets. However the danger from these rockets is vastly overstated IMO and is only an excuse for ethnically cleansing the area.

"Smuggling rockets" is a very small part of what comes through those tunnels (another excuse) if any at all. The Israeli's created those tunnels by not allowing food etc into Gaza.
In your own words the equation is simple, lift the siege, allow the UN peace-keepers to patrol the border and the tunnels are redundant. No need for jackboot tactics at all.

You can deny the building of new settlements and outposts all you like but reality on the ground says otherwise

"Contrary to what the media fanfare saluting the Gaza disengagement would have us believe, here in the West Bank there is an orchestrated plan for settlement expansion. Whilst 9000 settlers were evacuated last year from Gaza, 12,000 settlers moved into the West Bank.(Haaretz 06.02.06)"
http://rainbow70.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html

munchester29

concussion wrote: »

Most people haven't a clue of how smokescreens are made or the legalities of using WP in populated areas. He lied and got caught.

The Journalists present know (or at least they should), any person with military training would know, and there are many regular joes out there who know about WP also.

The fact is that many sources (such as The Guardian), somehow managed to drop the words "only smoke curtains" from their quotes, giving a “slightly” different meaning to what was said.

Can't really blame Israel for lying when they didn't - they were simply misquoted.

concussion

munchester29 wrote: »

Can't really blame Israel for lying when they didn't - they were simply misquoted.

I'm using the quote in full, which YOU provided :mad:

munchester29

paulaa wrote: »

There's no damned if they do, damned if they don't. They do exactly as they like, break agreements, ignore all requests to comply with guidelines and resolutions that other countries try to adhere to, ignore the human rights of anyone other than their own and lie and deceive, even those who help them like the US.Pardon me if I have no sympathy for a settlers living in caravans, when many thousands of Gazans are trying to live in the rubble of their houses

You can blame Hammas all you like but the majority of the blame has to lie with Israel. Look at their treatment of Abbas, a man who could not even get a permit to attend a meeting of Arab States a couple of weeks ago. The PA were supposed to be the authority in the West Ban and still the people have no freedoms and are still subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment.There are thousands of people, including children as young as 10 being held without charge in Israeli prisons and many more who have disappeared with trace. The only difference between the WB is that they are not deprived of food and medicine but are still basically prisoners with very little rights.
Hammas do not trust the Israelis, simple as that and they have 60 years of experience to prove that they have a point.

You very conveniently forget the siege of Gaza which even now the Israelis show no signs of lifting. I would be a tad annoyed if I was forced to live under those conditions and I can understand (not condone) why Hammas fire rockets. However the danger from these rockets is vastly overstated IMO and is only an excuse for ethnically cleansing the area.

"Smuggling rockets" is a very small part of what comes through those tunnels (another excuse) if any at all. The Israeli's created those tunnels by not allowing food etc into Gaza.
In your own words the equation is simple, lift the siege, allow the UN peace-keepers to patrol the border and the tunnels are redundant. No need for jackboot tactics at all.

You can deny the building of new settlements and outposts all you like but reality on the ground says otherwise

"Contrary to what the media fanfare saluting the Gaza disengagement would have us believe, here in the West Bank there is an orchestrated plan for settlement expansion. Whilst 9000 settlers were evacuated last year from Gaza, 12,000 settlers moved into the West Bank.(Haaretz 06.02.06)"
http://rainbow70.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html

I’ll start with your link – not really a good example for unbiased approach.

As for the rest - I’ll be polite and say that this isn’t one of your best posts.

The bottom line is very simple.
Israel wants peace. That’s what they say, and that’s how they act when they are not forced to retaliate because of Hamas attacks.
Israel tried and left Gaza, they tried and they dismantled settlements. They tried to negotiate. In return Israel only got increased attacks.

Hamas, on the other hand, say they want to destroy Israel, and all their actions are clearly designed for that purpose.

Maybe it’s time the Hamas violence stops first, before any other one sided steps are made by Israel?

I’ll ask again, since no one seems to be able to answer – What have the Palestinians ever done to achieve peace?

munchester29

concussion wrote: »

I'm using the quote in full, which YOU provided :mad:

Sorry, that's what happens when an issue is discussed over several posts in the thread.:(

My initial quote was the full sentence with the words "smoke screens".
Later on, I was explaining the point further using the word “Ilegally” to explain that that's what would have been understood if the full quote was used.

paulaa

munchester29 wrote: »

If they wanted food and medicine, they would have dug the tunnel under the Egyptian border, not the Israeli one.

Most of the tunnels were under the Egyptian/ Gazan border in and around Raffah. The Sinai Bedouins were doing great business in foodstuffs, live animals, spare parts, medicines, fuel for cooking, messages from relatives etc. They were the lifeline to the Gazans while they were under seige.

concussion

munchester29 wrote: »

My initial quote was the full sentence with the words "smoke screens".
Later on, I was explaining the point further using the word “Ilegally” to explain that that's what would have been understood if the full quote was used.

He said they only used smoke curtains not white phosphorous. We have seen examples of these smoke curtains - they are created by white phosphorus. They may be using them legally, but they are still using WP, which he explicity said they weren't. I can't be any clearer than this.

munchester29

concussion wrote: »

He said they only used smoke curtains not white phosphorous. We have seen examples of these smoke curtains - they are created by white phosphorus. They may be using them legally, but they are still using WP, which he explicity said they weren't. I can't be any clearer than this.

OK, a couple more quotes from a different source (too lazy to find the old one on this thread):

“On 13 January, in response to a query from parliamentarian Zehava Galon on the allegation that the IDF was using white phosphorus in Gaza, IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said: "The IDF operates weapons in accordance with international law. We do not use phosphorus, only "smoke curtains" (smoke screens).''

“The answer did not explain what "smoke curtains" are. In an interview on Israeli TV Channel 1 on 12 January, Reserve Maj-Gen Yiftach Ron Tal said: "Israel is using smoke screens that include phosphoric elements."

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20090116121730915


So, basically, if we go back to the initial point I was making, Israel has admitted it used WP as smoke screens, which is a legal use.
They didn’t lie, they didn’t hide the truth.

I really can’t see how anyone could have understood anything different.

concussion

"We do not use phosphorus"

The Chief of Staff should pay attention to what his commanders have been saying before making an announcement like above.

What do the shells that create smoke screens (not HC smoke mind) use to generate the smoke????????
He should have said 'we do not use phosphorus illegally' or 'we do not use phosphorus except to create smoke screens.' But he didn't.

munchester29

concussion wrote: »

"We do not use phosphorus"


What do the shells that create smoke screens (not HC smoke mind) use to generate the smoke????????

He should have said 'we do not use phosphorus illegally' or 'we do not use phosphorus except to create smoke screens.' But he didn't.

You are arguing pure semantics, but in any case the meaning of what he said is the same and enough people have understood exactly what he meant.

The original point I was making was that Israel didn’t deny the use of WP.
I gave Ashkenazi’s words as proof, but if you want to argue semantics – let’s forget what Ashkenazi said, and look at what Reserve Maj-Gen Yiftach Ron Tal said:
"Israel is using smoke screens that include phosphoric elements."

Ron Tal said this a day before Ashkenazi’s comment was said, and it is very clear.
Ashkenazi’s words are basically a repeat of what Ron Tal said, in different words.

In any case the bottom line is still the same – Israel hasn’t denied using WP for smoke screens.

Offy

munchester29 wrote: »

You are arguing pure semantics, but in any case the meaning of what he said is the same and enough people have understood exactly what he meant.

The original point I was making was that Israel didn’t deny the use of WP.
I gave Ashkenazi’s words as proof, but if you want to argue semantics – let’s forget what Ashkenazi said, and look at what Reserve Maj-Gen Yiftach Ron Tal said:
"Israel is using smoke screens that include phosphoric elements."

Ron Tal said this a day before Ashkenazi’s comment was said, and it is very clear.
Ashkenazi’s words are basically a repeat of what Ron Tal said, in different words.

In any case the bottom line is still the same – Israel hasn’t denied using WP for smoke screens.

And that makes its use ok does it?

Offy

munchester29 wrote: »

If the Palestinians bother to blame Israel for everything they can think of, and they bother to deny each and every blame Israel puts at their door step,

Clinically that statement is known as projection. Its a kind of madness, look it up. Its where you accuse others of doing what you are doing.

Offy

munchester29 wrote: »

Can't really blame Israel for lying when they didn't - they were simply misquoted.

BS

munchester29

Offy wrote: »

And that makes its use ok does it?

It makes its use legal.
There aren't too many types of ammunition or weapon systems used in a war which can be considered "OK" by anyone who values life.

The Saint

I have been avoiding this thread for a while now but have been keeping an eye on it. I am absolutely amazed to see Munchester still peddling crap about the settlements not being illegal under international law.

Now I know he doesn't take much heed to the 2004 ICJ ruling but I think it's worth looking at again since it is the highest judicial body in the world. Munchester states that the ruling only relates to the wall. However, to determine the legailty of the wall that incorporates many settlements the Court had to determine the legality of the settlements. This is what they stated in their advisory opinion:

The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied
Palestinian Territor;! (including East Jerusalem) have been established
in breach of international law.
Linky

Seems pretty clear.

Now Munchester then went on about one dissenting opinion, that of the US justice Thomas Buergenthal. Now this doesn't really matter since the ICJ make rulings my majority vote and the vote was 14 to 1. Buergenthal did vote against it for the following reasons:

Since I believe that the Court should have exercised its discretion
and declined to render the requested advisory opinion, I dissent from its
decision to hear the case. My negative votes with regard to the remaining
items of the dispositif should not be seen as reflecting my view that the
construction of the wall by lsrael on the Occupied Palestinian Territory
does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I believe
it does, and there is much in the Opinion with which I agree. However, I
am compelled to vote against the Court's findings on the merits because
the Court did not have before it the requisite factual bases for its sweeping
findings; it should therefore have declined to hear the case.

However Buergenthal did render an opinion which stated that:

Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also
does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies.
It provides that "the Occupying Powcr shall not deport or transfer
parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". I agree
that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and
that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the
segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are
ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law.
Linky

This ruling was affirmed by the General Assembly resolution by a vote of 150 votes to 6. The dissenting votes came from Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru Palau and the United States. Linky to full resolution

Now to move onto Security Council Resolutions dealing with the settlements.

UN 446

Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

UN 452

Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949

Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

UN 465

5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

UN 476

Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;

Now for the Fourth Geneva Convention:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Linky

Now I know Munchester is just going to prattle on about how the ICJ ruling is an opinion, that General Assembly Rulings aren't binding and that Security Council resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter are not binding but will offer no authoritative evidence to show that the settlements are not illegal other than Israeli government statements and selective legal opinions. The world will continue to go around and Munchester will still say that the world is flat.

paulaa

Thank you for that information Saint, very informative.

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

I have been avoiding this thread for a while now but have been keeping an eye on it. I am absolutely amazed to see Munchester still peddling crap about the settlements not being illegal under international law.

Now I know he doesn't take much heed to the 2004 ICJ ruling but I think it's worth looking at again since it is the highest judicial body in the world. Munchester states that the ruling only relates to the wall. However, to determine the legailty of the wall that incorporates many settlements the Court had to determine the legality of the settlements. This is what they stated in their advisory opinion:

Seems pretty clear.

Now Munchester then went on about one dissenting opinion, that of the US justice Thomas Buergenthal. Now this doesn't really matter since the ICJ make rulings my majority vote and the vote was 14 to 1. Buergenthal did vote against it for the following reasons:


However Buergenthal did render an opinion which stated that:


This ruling was affirmed by the General Assembly resolution by a vote of 150 votes to 6. The dissenting votes came from Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru Palau and the United States. Linky to full resolution

Now to move onto Security Council Resolutions dealing with the settlements.

UN 446


UN 452


UN 465


UN 476


Now for the Fourth Geneva Convention:



Now I know Munchester is just going to prattle on about how the ICJ ruling is an opinion, that General Assembly Rulings aren't binding and that Security Council resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter are not binding but will offer no authoritative evidence to show that the settlements are not illegal other than Israeli government statements and selective legal opinions. The world will continue to go around and Munchester will still say that the world is flat.

Well, if you want other sources that claim the Israeli settlements are not illegal that badly…

Let’s start with the ICJ, and the validity of their interpretation of international law:

“Some legal scholars (including prominent international law expert Julius Stone, and Eugene Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School) and others, have also argued that the settlements are legal under international law, on a number of different grounds.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Legal_background



As for the UN resolutions:


Funny you forgot the uber resolution – resolution 242, which shows the major problem with all the resolutions you quoted – the definition of settlements and definition of territories as expressed in these resolutions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#Legal_interpretation

"The Common Law legal principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius (which, for Common Law jurisdictions such as the UK and USA, states that the terms excluded from a law must be considered as excluded intentionally) is cited by some as operating against an "all territories" reading. Arab states specifically requested that the resolution be changed to read "all territories" instead of "territories. Their request was discussed by the UN Security Council. However, it was rejected. The Security Council actively chose to reject writing "all territories" and instead wrote "territories." And it was this version, without "all" that was passed. Others insist that the legal principle in question cannot operate so as to create ambiguity.

Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:
“We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.”


“The statement by the Brazilian representative perhaps gives a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions:

“I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States.”


And naturally, the rest of my “prattle” about how the ICJ ruling is an opinion, that General Assembly Rulings aren't binding and that Security Council resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter are not binding, is still valid.

Offy

munchester29 wrote: »

There aren't too many types of ammunition or weapon systems used in a war which can be considered "OK" by anyone who values life.

I think thats the first thing you said that I could respect you for.

Just because something is legal does not mean anyone should do it. Israel should have high morals and ethics, they used WP because it was easy. It worked well under the conditions at hand, strategically it was brilliant, it flushed the enemy out with minimum risk to the IDF. The cloud of smoke from WP contains tiny partials of WP the burn into the flesh like acid driving the victim into a state of combat uselessness. Easy to pick of in that state. BUT its despicable, its illegal and its barbaric. Israel should be kicking its governments and army generals ass right now but their not, to Israelis these people are now hero's and thats what the world has a problem with. Not that Israel got peed off with Hamas rocket attacks, thats perfectly understandable and so too is retaliation (not that I believe violence achieves anything other than more violence) but Israel need to show a little restraint. Israel need to be held accountable otherwise Israel is nothing more than a tyrant and a threat to the world just like Hitler was. To defend the conduct of Israel's war against Palestine is no different to defending Hitler. Two wrongs dont make a right.

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

Well, if you want other sources that claim the Israeli settlements are not illegal that badly…

Let’s start with the ICJ, and the validity of their interpretation of international law:

“Some legal scholars (including prominent international law expert Julius Stone, and Eugene Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School) and others, have also argued that the settlements are legal under international law, on a number of different grounds.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Legal_background



As for the UN resolutions:


Funny you forgot the uber resolution – resolution 242, which shows the major problem with all the resolutions you quoted – the definition of settlements and definition of territories as expressed in these resolutions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#Legal_interpretation

"The Common Law legal principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius (which, for Common Law jurisdictions such as the UK and USA, states that the terms excluded from a law must be considered as excluded intentionally) is cited by some as operating against an "all territories" reading. Arab states specifically requested that the resolution be changed to read "all territories" instead of "territories. Their request was discussed by the UN Security Council. However, it was rejected. The Security Council actively chose to reject writing "all territories" and instead wrote "territories." And it was this version, without "all" that was passed. Others insist that the legal principle in question cannot operate so as to create ambiguity.

Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:
“We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.”


“The statement by the Brazilian representative perhaps gives a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions:

“I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States.”


And naturally, the rest of my “prattle” about how the ICJ ruling is an opinion, that General Assembly Rulings aren't binding and that Security Council resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter are not binding, is still valid.

So like I said you would select some legal scholars that support your position. If I wanted I could compile a list of legal scholars that support my position on the settlements. However it would mean very little if anything. That is why I cited the ICJ, UNGA, UNSC and the Geneva Conventions. I take these as being more authoritative than what some guy says that happens to agree with you.

As for resolution 242; it's completely irrelivant. UN242 mentions nothing about settlements. It was also superceded by the numerous resolutions above that specifically address the settlement issue. However, since you don't think that SC resolutions under Chapter VI mean anything I'm surprised to see you cite one in supporting your arguement.

Anyway, from your quotes above it seems that UN242 doesn't proclude the borders being on the pre June 1967 borders. From your quote:

“I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States.”

So borders should be concluded through negotiation amongst interested parties. However Israel is unilaterally determining its borders without negotiation so surely is in breach of the resolution itself.

munchester29

Offy wrote: »

I think thats the first thing you said that I could respect you for.

Just because something is legal does not mean anyone should do it. Israel should have high morals and ethics, they used WP because it was easy. It worked well under the conditions at hand, strategically it was brilliant, it flushed the enemy out with minimum risk to the IDF. The cloud of smoke from WP contains tiny partials of WP the burn into the flesh like acid driving the victim into a state of combat uselessness. Easy to pick of in that state. BUT its despicable, its illegal and its barbaric. Israel should be kicking its governments and army generals ass right now but their not, to Israelis these people are now hero's and thats what the world has a problem with. Not that Israel got peed off with Hamas rocket attacks, thats perfectly understandable and so too is retaliation (not that I believe violence achieves anything other than more violence) but Israel need to show a little restraint. Israel need to be held accountable otherwise Israel is nothing more than a tyrant and a threat to the world just like Hitler was. To defend the conduct of Israel's war against Palestine is no different to defending Hitler. Two wrongs dont make a right.

I agree with you that violence only results in more violence.
If eventually there are findings that show Israel used WP on civilians illegally, I will condemn that same as you.
I just don’t think the whole WP uproar is justified at this stage.

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

So like I said you would select some legal scholars that support your position. If I wanted I could compile a list of legal scholars that support my position on the settlements. However it would mean very little if anything. That is why I cited the ICJ, UNGA, UNSC and the Geneva Conventions. I take these as being more authoritative than what some guy says that happens to agree with you.

Those “guys” I quoted are the dean of Yale law school and an international law professor who is the author of 27 books on jurisprudence and international law, and is considered one of the premier legal theorists in the field.

Hardly “some scholars”.

The Saint wrote: »

As for resolution 242; it's completely irrelivant. UN242 mentions nothing about settlements. It was also superceded by the numerous resolutions above that specifically address the settlement issue. However, since you don't think that SC resolutions under Chapter VI mean anything I'm surprised to see you cite one in supporting your arguement.

Resolution 242 doesn’t contain the word settlements, but it contains the word “territories”. Since the “settlements” are built in the “territories”, it has much relevance to the issue at hand.

As for the other resolutions – these also do not speak of “all the territories”, “all the settlements”, etc.
So the same problem from resolution 242 has been inherited by each and every one of the resolutions you quoted.

Take note – none of the resolutions details the borders of the territories or the specific settlements which are illegal, or the borders of the specific settlements which are illegal. So how do you know what is illegal and what isn’t?

So the resolutions were made, with a lot of room to manoeuvre when the time comes for an actual peace process.

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

Anyway, from your quotes above it seems that UN242 doesn't proclude the borders being on the pre June 1967 borders. From your quote:

So borders should be concluded through negotiation amongst interested parties. However Israel is unilaterally determining its borders without negotiation so surely is in breach of the resolution itself.

As long as Israel doesn’t have a partner to negotiate with, all Israel can do is decide for themselves what is best for Israel and act accordingly.
Note that Israel hasn’t declared these borders as permanent borders, and they have agreed that a two state solution will be based on the 1967 borders.

I wouldn’t worry too much though. When the time comes, and both sides sit down to negotiate, everything will be on the table – the settlements, the wall, the 1967 borders – everything.

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

The existence of the colonies only proves that 40 years ago there was a war, in which Israel conquered the occupied territories, and that 40 years ago things were done differently.

Then why was the greatest period of settlement growth in the early 90's?

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

Israel also has valid claims to areas which are considered as settlements by the Palestinians.
.

Emmm...no, they don't. Sorry.

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

Those “guys” I quoted are the dean of Yale law school and an international law professor who is the author of 27 books on jurisprudence and international law, and is considered one of the premier legal theorists in the field.

Hardly “some scholars”.

All very impressive but they are but two individuals giving individual opinions. I have cited the 15 judges of the highest judicial body in the world, 150 member states of the UN general assembly and the permanent five members of the UN security council. I'll take the opinion of all these instead of the two people you cited.

munchester29 wrote: »

Resolution 242 doesn’t contain the word settlements, but it contains the word “territories”. Since the “settlements” are built in the “territories”, it has much relevance to the issue at hand.

As for the other resolutions – these also do not speak of “all the territories”, “all the settlements”, etc.
So the same problem from resolution 242 has been inherited by each and every one of the resolutions you quoted.

Take note – none of the resolutions details the borders of the territories or the specific settlements which are illegal, or the borders of the specific settlements which are illegal. So how do you know what is illegal and what isn’t?

So the resolutions were made, with a lot of room to manoeuvre when the time comes for an actual peace process.

So you say that the resolutions I mentioned didn't say "all territories" or "the territories" so therefore it cannot be determined whether the settlements are legal. From your qoute above:

Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:
“We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.”

So the ommisison of "the" in UN242 was sufficiently ambiguous to not include all territories taken in 1967. However from the resolutions I quoted:

UN 446

Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

UN 452

Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949

Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

UN 465

5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

UN 476

Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;

So it seems from your arguement that the inclusion of "the" would indicate all territories captured in 1967. It also specifies Jerusalem so there is absolutely no ambiguity in relation to that.