Israel Approves 1200 New Settlement Homes

[Saigon]

Caroline -

The problem is not that people do not understand your point.

The problem is that your point does not make logical sense.

For instance - if the 1922 Mandate still applies, on what basis does the Churchill White Paper not apply?

Secondly, when countries recognised Israel - why do the documents of recognition not mention the mandate?

Shall I go on, or do you now understand where you've gone wrong?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Caroline -

The problem is not that people do not understand your point.

The problem is that your point does not make logical sense.

For instance - if the 1922 Mandate still applies, on what basis does the Churchill White Paper not apply?

Secondly, when countries recognised Israel - why do the documents of recognition not mention the mandate?

Shall I go on, or do you now understand where you've gone wrong?

Hmm, yes, go on, and on.

 

[Saigon]

Caroline -

When countries recognised Israel, were they specifically informed that Israel was not an independent country, but was operating under the auspices of a mandate?

If the Mandate still applies, does the UK maintain the right to adjust the borders?

If Israel is operating as a mandate territory, should it lose its seat at the UN?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Caroline -

When countries recognised Israel, were they specifically informed that Israel was not an independent country, but was operating under the auspices of a mandate?

If the Mandate still applies, does the UK maintain the right to adjust the borders?

If Israel is operating as a mandate territory, should it lose its seat at the UN?

Independence does not change the status. The UK has no right to adjust the borders. Israel should not lose its seat in the UN.

 

[Saigon]

Caroline -

Independence does change the status, because countries like Finland and the US recognise Israel as a fully independent country - not as a mandate territory.

Also, the basis of Israeli law is not the 1922 San Remo documents, but the Hariri Decision (1948).

There is no Constitution of Israel. Instead of a formal written constitution and in accordance with the 1948 Harari Decision (החלטת הרר&#1497 adopted during the Israeli Constituent Assembly, the State of Israel has enacted several Basic Laws of Israel dealing with the government arrangements and human rights. The Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak ruled that the Basic Laws should be considered the state's constitution, and that has become the common approach throughout his tenure. Opponents of this approach include Barak's colleague, Judge of the Supreme Court Mishael Cheshin.

The purpose of the Constituent Assembly initially was to enact a constitution for Israel by 1 October 1948 but they failed to do so.

Constitution of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Caroline -

Independence does change the status, because countries like Finland and the US recognise Israel as a fully independent country - not as a mandate territory.

Also, the basis of Israeli law is not the 1922 San Remo documents, but the Hariri Decision (1948).

There is no Constitution of Israel. Instead of a formal written constitution and in accordance with the 1948 Harari Decision (החלטת הרר&#1497 adopted during the Israeli Constituent Assembly, the State of Israel has enacted several Basic Laws of Israel dealing with the government arrangements and human rights. The Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak ruled that the Basic Laws should be considered the state's constitution, and that has become the common approach throughout his tenure. Opponents of this approach include Barak's colleague, Judge of the Supreme Court Mishael Cheshin.

The purpose of the Constituent Assembly initially was to enact a constitution for Israel by 1 October 1948 but they failed to do so.

Constitution of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your point is?

 

[Saigon]

Caroline -

My point is that Israel is a sovereign independent nation, and as such should abide by the same international laws as any other country.

I would also make the point that anyone who thinks Israel should continue to occupy or annex the West Bank is someone who has 0 interest in peace.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Caroline -

My point is that Israel is a sovereign independent nation, and as such should abide by the same international laws as any other country.

I would also make the point that anyone who thinks Israel should continue to occupy or annex the West Bank is someone who has 0 interest in peace.

We are going round in circles here. You know my views on Israel's legality of being in the West Bank so I don't have to repeat it. Israel should not give any land away, not at all. That is from the legal standpoint and of course from a safety standpoint. A Palestinian State west of the Jordan river would be absolute madness for Israel's security. I won't be persuaded to change my views, so don't even try.

 

[Saigon]

Caroline -

In general, how would you rate Israel's security during the past 20 years?

If you would say poor, as I would, then you understand why a better solution needs to be found.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Caroline -

In general, how would you rate Israel's security during the past 20 years?

If you would say poor, as I would, then you understand why a better solution needs to be found.

Since the wall, it is better. However giving away any land in the WB for a state would leave Israel wide open for attack. Israel needs to control the space between the Jordan River and the Med.

 

[Spitfire]

I support Palestinians firing a rocket into Israel for every settler house that they build from this day forward.

No land? No peace!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Caroline -

My point is that Israel is a sovereign independent nation, and as such should abide by the same international laws as any other country.

I would also make the point that anyone who thinks Israel should continue to occupy or annex the West Bank is someone who has 0 interest in peace.

We are going round in circles here. You know my views on Israel's legality of being in the West Bank so I don't have to repeat it. Israel should not give any land away, not at all. That is from the legal standpoint and of course from a safety standpoint. A Palestinian State west of the Jordan river would be absolute madness for Israel's security. I won't be persuaded to change my views, so don't even try.

You know my views on Israel's legality of being in the West Bank so I don't have to repeat it.

You are seriously misreading the mandate. It said nothing about Israel being anywhere.

The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. As citizens of Palestine, they could live anywhere in Palestine. That still holds true under the Palestinian constitution. Palestinian Jews can live anywhere they chose.

 

[Jackster]

The settlements are illegal.

Israel has even called many of them to have been built on "stolen" land.

In February 2008, the Civil Administration stated that the land on which more than a third of West Bank settlements was built had been expropriated by the IDF for "security purposes."[128] The unauthorized seizure of private Palestinian land was defined by the Civil Administration itself as 'theft.'[129] According to B'Tselem, more than 42 percent of the West Bank are under control of the Israeli settlements, 21 percent of which was seized from private Palestinian owners, much of it in violation of the 1979 Israeli Supreme Court decision.[60]

A secret database, drafted by a retired senior officer, Baruch Spiegel, on orders from former defense minister Shaul Mofaz, found that some settlements deemed legal by Israel were illegal outposts, and that large portions of Ofra, Elon Moreh and Beit El were built on private Palestinian land. The "Spiegel report" was revealed by Haaretz in 2009. Many settlements are largely built on private lands, without approval of the Israeli Government.[130]

 

[MHunterB]

I support Palestinians firing a rocket into Israel for every settler house that they build from this day forward.

No land? No peace!

Isn't that special. Obviously you are truly a pacifist at heart.

 

[georgephillip]

I support Palestinians firing a rocket into Israel for every settler house that they build from this day forward.

No land? No peace!

Isn't that special. Obviously you are truly a pacifist at heart.

While you're truly in denial?

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

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MHunterB]

I support Palestinians firing a rocket into Israel for every settler house that they build from this day forward.

No land? No peace!

Isn't that special. Obviously you are truly a pacifist at heart.

While you're truly in denial?

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

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's hilarious, a 'communist' babbling about 'denial' ..........

Nobody's been 'deported' or 'transferred' by government order.

But it's nice of you to cite the section of the GC which covers the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem by the Jordanians - a crime against humanity from 1949 which has yet to be prosecuted.

Do you still think it's 'owed' the Palestinians for their 'capital' now that you know E J was a Jewish community before the Jordanian Army engaged in ethnic cleansing?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Isn't that special. Obviously you are truly a pacifist at heart.

While you're truly in denial?

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

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's hilarious, a 'communist' babbling about 'denial' ..........

Nobody's been 'deported' or 'transferred' by government order.

But it's nice of you to cite the section of the GC which covers the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem by the Jordanians - a crime against humanity from 1949 which has yet to be prosecuted.

Do you still think it's 'owed' the Palestinians for their 'capital' now that you know E J was a Jewish community before the Jordanian Army engaged in ethnic cleansing?

That is true. They are paid to move.

 

[MHunterB]

NO, Tinny: the Jews ordered out of their homes in EJ at gunpoint were not 'paid to move'.

It was the exact situation you cited as forbidden by the GC.

While you are unable to recognize that, Tinny - you give me no reason to trust your perception on any other situation you claim is similar.

 

[P F Tinmore]

NO, Tinny: the Jews ordered out of their homes in EJ at gunpoint were not 'paid to move'.

It was the exact situation you cited as forbidden by the GC.

While you are unable to recognize that, Tinny - you give me no reason to trust your perception on any other situation you claim is similar.

I thought we were talking about settlers.

Those Jews who were forced to move have every right to return to their former homes.

 

[Bloodrock44]

NO, Tinny: the Jews ordered out of their homes in EJ at gunpoint were not 'paid to move'.

It was the exact situation you cited as forbidden by the GC.

While you are unable to recognize that, Tinny - you give me no reason to trust your perception on any other situation you claim is similar.

I thought we were talking about settlers.

Those Jews who were forced to move have every right to return to their former homes.

Betcha didn't know there are more settlement building announcements to be made. Maybe those displaced Jews can get a good deal on one of those homes.