Israel to Divert Military Budget to Settlement Expansion

[fanger]

According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[aris2chat]

According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Israeli Settlements Are Not Illegal
americanthinker.com/articles/2014/07/israeli_settlements_are_not_illegal.html


Seventeen nations of the European union did not listen to or remember the remarks of Julie Bishop, foreign minister of Australia, made on January 21, 2014. She asserted that the international community should refrain from calling Israeli settlements illegal under international law while their status is not yet determined.

The EU members neglected this wise advice and impetuously issued a warning that financial transactions, investments, and economic activity with Israeli settlements or benefiting them carry legal and financial risks. In their view, this dire analysis stems from the “fact” that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognized as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory.

Three reasons are usually given by those international bodies, academic institutions, and mainstream churches who hold this conviction about the settlements. They are: Israeli settlements are illegal under international law; they constitute an obstacle to peace; and they threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. The reality is that none of the three can be justified on the basis of real evidence.

First, are the Israeli settlements illegal? They can be criticized on grounds of lack of prudence or wisdom, or are unnecessarily provocative, but that is not consonant with illegality. To make an informed opinion, the large number of very varied settlements, built for economic, religious, or security reasons, should not be assessed in a categorical way, as the critics assess them. These critics rarely, if ever, distinguish among the 121 settlements that are officially recognized by the State of Israel, with 350,000 inhabitants; the 300,000 in East Jerusalem; the 20,000 in the Golan Heights; and the 102 illegal outposts. Farming communities, frontier villages, modular homes, and urban suburbs, and towns of considerable size – such as Mod’in Illit with 55,000, Beitar Illit with 42,000, and Ma’ale Adumin with 36,000 – all are part of the diverse settlement movement.

The beginning of wisdom is that the territories in question are disputed, in spite of the constant repetition by so many in the international community that they are “occupied territories.” Though Jordan, between 1950 and 1967, claimed to have annexed the area that is now called the West Bank, the international community did not accept this claim as valid. Jordan never had any legal title to the area. Even Jordan later withdrew its claim.

No other political entity has had legal title or sovereignty or statehood over the area since the days of the Ottoman Empire. The legal claim to the area thus remains disputed. There is no sovereign authority to which Israel can return the land without negotiated agreement. After the 1967 Six-Day War, a war fought in Israel’s lawful exercise of the inherent right of self-defense, as Article 51 of the U.N. Charter justifies, Israel established the international law of belligerent occupation to the area it had captured. Control is exercised on the basis of international law, the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and Israeli law, with the objective of ensuring public order and civil life. The Israeli High Court has determined that this control must be carried out on the basis of “proportionality.”

What international law declares the settlements illegal? The critics of Israel all rely on an interpretation of one clause in an international document – namely, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Article 49(6) forbids transfers of populations to occupied territories, stating, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It is concerned with people and with their rights, not with territory or legal questions relating to that territory. But no one is being transferred involuntarily. Israelis are not being deported to the West Bank, nor are Palestinians being deported from the West Bank.

Nor can the movement of Israelis be regarded as violating the human rights of the occupied individuals. The situation is totally unlike that of the deportation of Jews to their deaths in the Nazi extermination camps. The 1949 Geneva Convention was aimed at preventing in the future what had happened in World War II: the forced transfer of large numbers of Jews by Nazi Germany and associates to the extermination camps. It was never intended to apply to Israeli settlements.

There is no international law to ban Jews, whether Israelis or otherwise, from settling in the area of the original Palestine Mandate established by the League of Nations. The Mandate clearly says, in Article 6, that the administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the lands, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” Eugene Rostow argued thirty years ago that “until the final status of a particular area is resolved, there is no legal basis for barring Jews from settling there.”

That settlement is fulfillment of the historic right, going back 3,000 years, of Jews to live in the land. T his of course is not a legal right, but it is a moral and well as historic one.

Do the settlements prevent a two-state solution? There were no boundaries between Israel and Palestinians ever drawn up, and therefore the future and extent of the territories is to be decided by negotiations, as called for by U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. It was the rejection by the Arab League and Palestinians of the U.N. Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 calling for two states, one Jewish and the other Arab, that prevented the creation of an Arab state. It is noticeable that almost all the continuing construction in the settlements are in those of the units that are suburbs of Jerusalem, areas that Palestinians accept would be part of Israel in any final status agreement. The settlements in no way prejudge the outcome of negotiations. On the contrary, their existence must not be used as an excuse to prevent those negotiations.

The essence of the matter is that there are no “1967 borders”; there are only 1949 Armistice Lines and a Green Line. Resolutions in the United Nations organizations unhelpfully changed from referring to the disputed area as “ territories occupied,” as in U.N. Security Resolution 242 that does not use the words “all territories,” to a formula such as “occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem.” Yet there are no “Palestinian territories” on the basis of history. The conclusion can only be that the issue of the settlements must be part of the final status negotiations.

Michael Curtis is author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East.

Seventeen nations of the European union did not listen to or remember the remarks of Julie Bishop, foreign minister of Australia, made on January 21, 2014. She asserted that the international community should refrain from calling Israeli settlements illegal under international law while their status is not yet determined.

The EU members neglected this wise advice and impetuously issued a warning that financial transactions, investments, and economic activity with Israeli settlements or benefiting them carry legal and financial risks. In their view, this dire analysis stems from the “fact” that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognized as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory.

Three reasons are usually given by those international bodies, academic institutions, and mainstream churches who hold this conviction about the settlements. They are: Israeli settlements are illegal under international law; they constitute an obstacle to peace; and they threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. The reality is that none of the three can be justified on the basis of real evidence.

First, are the Israeli settlements illegal? They can be criticized on grounds of lack of prudence or wisdom, or are unnecessarily provocative, but that is not consonant with illegality. To make an informed opinion, the large number of very varied settlements, built for economic, religious, or security reasons, should not be assessed in a categorical way, as the critics assess them. These critics rarely, if ever, distinguish among the 121 settlements that are officially recognized by the State of Israel, with 350,000 inhabitants; the 300,000 in East Jerusalem; the 20,000 in the Golan Heights; and the 102 illegal outposts. Farming communities, frontier villages, modular homes, and urban suburbs, and towns of considerable size – such as Mod’in Illit with 55,000, Beitar Illit with 42,000, and Ma’ale Adumin with 36,000 – all are part of the diverse settlement movement.

The beginning of wisdom is that the territories in question are disputed, in spite of the constant repetition by so many in the international community that they are “occupied territories.” Though Jordan, between 1950 and 1967, claimed to have annexed the area that is now called the West Bank, the international community did not accept this claim as valid. Jordan never had any legal title to the area. Even Jordan later withdrew its claim.

No other political entity has had legal title or sovereignty or statehood over the area since the days of the Ottoman Empire. The legal claim to the area thus remains disputed. There is no sovereign authority to which Israel can return the land without negotiated agreement. After the 1967 Six-Day War, a war fought in Israel’s lawful exercise of the inherent right of self-defense, as Article 51 of the U.N. Charter justifies, Israel established the international law of belligerent occupation to the area it had captured. Control is exercised on the basis of international law, the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and Israeli law, with the objective of ensuring public order and civil life. The Israeli High Court has determined that this control must be carried out on the basis of “proportionality.”

What international law declares the settlements illegal? The critics of Israel all rely on an interpretation of one clause in an international document – namely, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Article 49(6) forbids transfers of populations to occupied territories, stating, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It is concerned with people and with their rights, not with territory or legal questions relating to that territory. But no one is being transferred involuntarily. Israelis are not being deported to the West Bank, nor are Palestinians being deported from the West Bank.

Nor can the movement of Israelis be regarded as violating the human rights of the occupied individuals. The situation is totally unlike that of the deportation of Jews to their deaths in the Nazi extermination camps. The 1949 Geneva Convention was aimed at preventing in the future what had happened in World War II: the forced transfer of large numbers of Jews by Nazi Germany and associates to the extermination camps. It was never intended to apply to Israeli settlements.

There is no international law to ban Jews, whether Israelis or otherwise, from settling in the area of the original Palestine Mandate established by the League of Nations. The Mandate clearly says, in Article 6, that the administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the lands, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” Eugene Rostow argued thirty years ago that “until the final status of a particular area is resolved, there is no legal basis for barring Jews from settling there.”

That settlement is fulfillment of the historic right, going back 3,000 years, of Jews to live in the land. T his of course is not a legal right, but it is a moral and well as historic one.

Do the settlements prevent a two-state solution? There were no boundaries between Israel and Palestinians ever drawn up, and therefore the future and extent of the territories is to be decided by negotiations, as called for by U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. It was the rejection by the Arab League and Palestinians of the U.N. Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 calling for two states, one Jewish and the other Arab, that prevented the creation of an Arab state. It is noticeable that almost all the continuing construction in the settlements are in those of the units that are suburbs of Jerusalem, areas that Palestinians accept would be part of Israel in any final status agreement. The settlements in no way prejudge the outcome of negotiations. On the contrary, their existence must not be used as an excuse to prevent those negotiations.

The essence of the matter is that there are no “1967 borders”; there are only 1949 Armistice Lines and a Green Line. Resolutions in the United Nations organizations unhelpfully changed from referring to the disputed area as “ territories occupied,” as in U.N. Security Resolution 242 that does not use the words “all territories,” to a formula such as “occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem.” Yet there are no “Palestinian territories” on the basis of history. The conclusion can only be that the issue of the settlements must be part of the final status negotiations.

 

[aris2chat]

Israeli Settlements: Not Just Legal, But Necessary
frontpagemag.com/2012/steven-plaut/israeli-settlements-not-just-legal-but-necessary/
Steven Plaut

A fascinating development this week in Israel was the release of the report of a governmental commission, whose assignment was to define the legal status of the “occupied territories” for purposes of government policy. The commission was headed by Edmund Levy, an interesting Supreme Court Judge and one of the only ones who is not a judicial activist leftist.

The Obama people are upset with the report – an indication of how good it is – and Israel’s moonbat Left is positively wetting itself in anguish. The synopsis of the report itself can be read in English here.


Basically the report says that the West Bank – Judea and Samaria – are not occupied territories at all but, at most, disputed territories, something like the US-Canadian border areas were during parts of North American history. As such, there is no reason why Israel cannot build there and even seize land there under eminent domain. There is nothing in international law that would make settlements “illegal.” And these should thus be proclaimed by Israel as completely legal. Whether or not Israel should build settlements then becomes a matter of Israeli interests and policy, not legal obstacles.

Here in brief is the case for Jewish settlements in the West Bank:

• It is in Israel’s acute national interest to prevent the West Bank from serving as a terrorist base, from which rockets, mortars and possibly weapons of mass destruction would be launched at Israel. Life in Israel would be impossible with the West Bank serving as a “Palestinian State,” basically a clone of Hamastan in Gaza. It is thus critical to do everything to prevent that from happening.
• Every accord or “deal” that provides for any sort of “Palestinian” state or sovereignty or entity operating outside Israeli control in the West Bank will produce the scenario of the previous point, mass terrorist aggression from “Palestine,” making life in Israel impossible. It does not matter what would be written in any accord or treaty.
• Israel would be prevented from taking serious action against terrorist aggression from this “Palestine” by international pressures and sanctions, and the Israeli Left would rally the world against Israeli “aggression” in all such cases.
• The only way effectively to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into a Hamastan terror base is by maintaining a significant Jewish population there. This effectively prevents international pressure from producing the conversion of the West Bank into the second Hamastan, and prevents endlessly appeasing and cowardly Israeli governments from capitulating to those pressures. (Imagine what Olmert would have done without the settlements.) Since most of the settlers are actually living in Jerusalem suburbs, their presence there also prevents any capitulations by Israel to pressures regarding relinquishing Jerusalem.
• While there are other moral and historic arguments why Israel and Jews have the right to live in the West Bank, the only REAL purpose of “settlements” is to prevent the emergence of any “Palestinian state.” No other rationalization or justification is needed. There are no other effective alternative ways to prevent the conversion of the West Bank into Hamastan.
• West Bank settlements are no obstacle at all for the economic development of the “Palestinian” population centers there, nor to forms of limited autonomy, which should be the most that Israel is willing to concede to the “Palestinians.” (And even they are not an entitlement.)
  
  There is a more fundamental problem with the whole word “occupation.” The anti-Israel lobby, including Israel’s Left, adopted the nonsense word “occupation” originally after 1967 because at the time it still conjured up associations with the Nazi occupation of Europe and the Japanese occupation of East Asia before and during the War. Israeli leaders decided that semantics did not matter and refused to fight against the terminology, and the battle was forfeited more than 40 years ago. The analogous Hebrew word “kibush” is an even more ridiculous word, meaning “conquest.” It is like claiming that the Belgian and Dutch territories liberated from the Nazis by the Allies are now “conquered territories.” As a matter of general policy, I would suggest that any time an Israeli uses the nonsense word “kibush,” and that includes half the articles in Haaretz, then you should regard absolutely everything else that person says about the world to be absolute nonsense.
  

 

[aris2chat]

Israeli settlements' legal basis
usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/23/israel-elections-palestine-settlements/1859157/
Territories are no more than "disputed" pending a negotiated solution.
A Jewish settler votes in the settlement of Elon Moreh in the West Bank on Tuesday.

(Photo: Dan Balilty, AP)
Story Highlights

• Jewish people are, for more than 3,000 years, the indigenous people in the region.
• Add to this the legal rights granted to the Jewish people by the 1917 Balfour Declaration.
• Even so, Israel committed itself to negotiate the fate of the area with the Palestinians.

The oft-used term "occupied Palestinian territories" has no basis whatsoever in law or fact. The territories are neither occupied nor are they Palestinian. No legal determination has ever been made as to their sovereignty, and by agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, they are no more than "disputed" pending a negotiated solution, with both sides claiming rights to the territory.

Israel has solid legal and historic rights to the territory, in light of the undeniable historic fact that the Jewish people are, for more than 3,000 years, the indigenous people in the region, including the source of Christianity there. Add to this the legal rights granted to the Jewish people by the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1923 San Remo Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate instrument and the United Nations Charter.

Israel has thus a very well-based claim to sovereignty over the area, more so than any other people, but has nevertheless committed itself to negotiate the fate of the area with the Palestinians.

Further to Israel's solid basis of rights to the territory, the Oslo agreements with the Palestinians contain no prohibition whatsoever on building settlements in those parts of the territory agreed upon as remaining under Israel's control.

Israeli settlements are built on public land that is not owned by Palestinian residents of the area, and their construction is in full accordance with the norms of international law regarding the use of land in disputed situations.

Furthermore, the prohibition of mass transfer of populations to occupied territory as set out in the 1949 Geneva Convention is not applicable, and was never intended to apply to Israel's settlement policy. It was drafted to prevent the mass transfers as carried out by the Nazis in World War II.

Accordingly, as long as settlements do not violate local Palestinian private property rights, and as long as the issue of the fate of the areas remains a negotiating issue, there is no legal basis for preventing continued settlement, pending the outcome of the final status negotiations.

 

[Phoenall]

According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No mention of the BBC in your link, want to try again.

And by the way the source is ISLAMONAZI so not valid.

 

[fanger]

2nd line down International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Heres the link referenced in wikipedia
The British Government believes that Israeli settlements on occupied territory are illegal. So does every other government in the world, except for Israel.
BBC NEWS Middle East Concern over Israel settlement exports

 

[Phoenall]

2nd line down International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Heres the link referenced in wikipedia
The British Government believes that Israeli settlements on occupied territory are illegal. So does every other government in the world, except for Israel.
BBC NEWS Middle East Concern over Israel settlement exports

Second line down says this

they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.[7] The United

Want to try a third time ?

 

[fanger]

You lie like a Jew, others can follow the link and read for themselves

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

Well, this statement is framed in a telling manner.

You lie like a Jew, others can follow the link and read for themselves

(COMMENT)

There are two sets of citation that need to be addressed.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, (GCIV) 12 August 1949.
Deportations, transfers, evacuations

• ARTICLE 49 [ Link ]
  
  Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
  Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
  The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
  The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
  The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
  The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Part 2 -- Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law --- Rome Statutes (RS) - International Criminal Court (ICC)

​

ARTICLE 8 - War Crimes

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
​

These the two most often used citations, excluding the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997)(Oslo Accord II). You will note that Article 8 (RS-ICC) refers to a derivative parent, contained in subparagraph "b" (the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict) that point to Article 49 (GCIV).

It remains to be seen what the litigation by the court (ICC) will make of this. BUT, it is clear that the principle difference between the parent code (Article 49) and the derivative code (Article 8) is that of the use of force ("Individual or mass forcible transfers"). It remains to be seen if and how the court will recognize, if at all, this difference. Many believe that the original intent of these prohibitions were to prevent a reoccurrence of the event of WWII wherein Jewish German Citizens were forcibly transferred to death camps outside Germany.

This is why it is so important to have the court make an interpretation and come to a final decision on the relationships between the laws and actions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

You lie like a Jew, others can follow the link and read for themselves

I even posted the second line down from your link and still no mention of the BBC. You LIE like only a muslim can as everyone will see the same thing I have.

No more tries your luck has run out.

 

[fanger]

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law.[10][11][12][35][36] According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.[37]

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law.[10][11][12][35][36] According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.[37]

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you say so, cant find it myself. And the BBC is a proven ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATING organisation.

 

[fanger]

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law.[10][11][12][35][36] According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.[37]

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you say so, cant find it myself. And the BBC is a proven ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATING organisation.

Danny Cohen is the Director of BBC Television And he's a 4x2

 

[Phoenall]

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law.[10][11][12][35][36] According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.[37]

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you say so, cant find it myself. And the BBC is a proven ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATING organisation.

Danny Cohen is the Director of BBC Television And he's a 4x2

Means absolutely nothing as the evidence show the BBC is ANTI SEMITIC and hates the Jews.

 

[Humanity]

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law.[10][11][12][35][36] According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.[37]

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If you say so, cant find it myself. And the BBC is a proven ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATING organisation.