In sharp reversal, U.S. agrees to rebuke Israel in Security Council

[ludahai]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Yes, I did. The agreement was in 1994, well after Israel occupied the West Bank and after Jordan relinquished claims to the West Bank in favor of a resolution between the PLO and Israel.

Post-war peace treaties are typically signed years after the war is concluded. In lieu of the peace treaty, the victor typically holds land in beliggerant occupation until ratification of said peace treaty. This is standard international practice.

 

[ludahai]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Err, no. Only Britain recognized Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank. No other country did. It is a principle of international law. There is no acquisition of territory by force.

No they did not. This is pure revisionism of what the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was about.

How exactly are the Palestinians going to get the Israeli government to oblige by international law governing occupying powers?

Territory is acquired via treaties, the only exception being that the territory is not previously part of any recognized state. Given that Britain was the mandatory power over the territory, their recognition is rather important. Then, if the West Bank was not part of Transjordan, then what state was it a sovereign part of? It is wasn't part of any state, when the Israelis occupied it in 1967, then there is a legal basis for their annexation of the land based on traditional international law as it was not part of any recognized state.

 

[Degreez]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Territory is acquired via treaties, the only exception being that the territory is not previously part of any recognized state. Given that Britain was the mandatory power over the territory, their recognition is rather important. Then, if the West Bank was not part of Transjordan, then what state was it a sovereign part of? It is wasn't part of any state, when the Israelis occupied it in 1967, then there is a legal basis for their annexation of the land based on traditional international law as it was not part of any recognized state.

There is no legal basis.

West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to supporters of Israel's rights, since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no "legitimate" claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which is Israel. This argument however is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom regard Israel's activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self-determination found in the Article One of the United Nations Charter, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 242 notes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive. Prominent Israeli human rights organizations such as B'tselem also refer to the Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation. John Quigley has noted that "...a state that uses force in self-defense may not retain territory it takes while repelling an attack. If Israel had acted in self-defense, that would not justify its retention of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense.

 

[mbig]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Degreez Cherry picking Wiki again.
The SAME Link continues with some contrasting views.

[....]
Many Israelis and their supporters prefer the term disputed territories, because they claim part of the territory for themselves, and state the land has not, in 2000 years, been sovereign.
Israel argues that its presence is justified because:

1. Israel's eastern border has never been defined by anyone;
2. The disputed territories have not been part of Any state since the time of the Ottoman Empire;
3. According to the Camp David Accords with Egypt, the 1994 agreement with Jordan and the Oslo Accords with the PLO, the final status of the territories would be fixed only when there was a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
[......]
and:
"A Contrasting opinion was held by Eugene Rostow, a former Dean of the Yale Law School and undersecretary of state for political affairs in the administration of U.S. President Lyndon Johnson and a drafter of UN Resolution 242:

The heated question of Israel's settlements in the West Bank during the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective. The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article", which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."[97]​

And of course, how can land be 'occupied' when there is NO recognized border.

Also Again see: http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...n-242-1967-borders-illegal-even-occupied.html
Which, in fact, always foresaw a buffer for Israel in recognition of that defensive if pre-emptive war.

 

[Degreez]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

LOL.
Degreez Selecta-quoting Wiki again.
The SAME Link continues with some contrasting views.

And of course, how can land be 'occupied' when there is NO recognized border.

Also Again see: http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...n-242-1967-borders-illegal-even-occupied.html

Notice how all of that is just a few Israelis' opinion on the matter? Their opinion doesn't hold any weight when numerous governments and NGOs consider the territory occupied (including Israel's Supreme Court).

Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In two cases decided shortly after independence, in the Shimshon and Stampfer cases, the Supreme Court of Israel held that the fundamental rules of international law accepted as binding by all "civilized" nations were incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal determined that the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 were customary law that had been recognized by all civilized nations. In the past, the Supreme Court has argued that the Geneva Convention insofar it is not supported by domestic legislation "does not bind this Court, its enforcement being a matter for the states which are parties to the Convention". They ruled that "Conventional international law does not become part of Israeli law through automatic incorporation, but only if it is adopted or combined with Israeli law by enactment of primary or subsidiary legislation from which it derives its force". However, in the same decision the Court ruled that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law.

The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that the area in question was under occupation and that accordingly only the military commander of the area may requisition land according to Article 52 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention.

 

[apdst]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

This is disappointing. Yet another American administration kowtowing to the Israeli lobby and we as Americans will pay the price in terrorist attacks and the shed blood of our troops.

So, instead, we should turn our backs on a sister democracy and kowtow to the terrorists?

 

[Degreez]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

So, instead, we should turn our backs on a sister democracy and kowtow to the terrorists?

Asking Israel to stop building and expanding settlements on occupied territory is not "kowtow"ing to the terrorists. It would be no different than asking terrorists to stop firing rockets into southern Israel. Both are violations of international law and both need to be stop to achieve a comprehensive peace.

 

[mbig]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Already addresd by me:

The last truly germaine document on this, before the UNSC started passing all kinds of ex post facto bashing is Res 242.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...n-242-1967-borders-illegal-even-occupied.html

The territories are Legally "Disputed" pending border negotiations, despite the common and non-legal use of the word 'occupied' by even many Israelis to describe anything past the 1967 Green/armistice line.

In addition, the 1993 Oslo Accords did not bar settlements.

And also again..
How can territories be 'occupied' if there's no Recognized border?
See if you can try that one instead of all the goofy Cherry picking I call you on regularly. "Oooh, I found a passage that agrees with me."

LYING about 'Ignore' again when convenient I see.
Well, since you can't answer the simple question above-- I suggest going back to LYING about it as you had to do originally for the same reason.

 

[nonpareil]

I think the Palestinian negotiators are being stupid in this case (assuming they want what's good for the Palestinians). By pushing for something they can't get, they make themselves look hard line (whether in reality it is true or not) and a soft condemnation on the settlement is better than nothing. What are they going to go next? Continue to cry about being a victim?

 

[mbig]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Also Again see: http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...n-242-1967-borders-illegal-even-occupied.html
Which, in fact, always foresaw a buffer for Israel in recognition of that defensive if pre-emptive war.

Lord Caradon, an [chief] author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

"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."

MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978

above quote; Peace encylopedia
Below ones sourced at post bottom.


"..Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:

Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"

Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did.
It was NOT for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is NOT a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is Not a permanent boundary...



Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

Question: "What is the British Interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from ALL territories taken in the late war?"

Mr. Stewart: "NO, Sir. That is NOT the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read Concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."...."



Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:

"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council.
"I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders.
The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and NOT from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will NOT Withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

USA

Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):

"That Resolution did Not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."



Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law/Public Affairs, Yale University.. 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:

a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and Not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'.
Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' Failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, Not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines."

USSR

- Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... there is certainly much Leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)

+More at link belowormally

Statements Clarifying the Meaning of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242

Ergo any uses of 'Occupied' in a Legal sense is Incorrect.
Whether by Israelis or not.
There is NO recognized sovereign land TO 'occupy'.
There is land in DISPUTE pending Border negotiations/Final status agreement.

 

[Degreez]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Already addresd by me:

I suggest reading Israel's commitments under the Road Map for Peace before making ignorant statements like above:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | The roadmap: Full text
Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.

Israel has not frozen settlement activity completely and since agreeing to this road map, there have been over half a dozen new settlements built.

And also again..
How can territories be 'occupied' if there's no Recognized border?

There's no recognized border because Israel has occupied the territory since 1967 and continuously altered the status quo in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Again, YOUR OPINION holds absolutely no weight here. The United States, the EU, the UNSC, the UNGA, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee for the Red Cross, Oxfam International, and Israel's Supreme Court consider the West Bank territory as occupied. If you don't agree with that, that is your opinion. The rest of the world will continue on knowing the truth in the Palestinian occupied territories.

 

[apdst]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Asking Israel to stop building and expanding settlements on occupied territory is not "kowtow"ing to the terrorists. It would be no different than asking terrorists to stop firing rockets into southern Israel. Both are violations of international law and both need to be stop to achieve a comprehensive peace.

Yet, we don't see anyone slobbering over the terrorists firing rockets into Israel.

 

[mbig]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

I suggest reading Israel's commitments under the Road Map for Peace before making ignorant statements like above:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | The roadmap: Full text
Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.

Israel has not frozen settlement activity completely and since agreeing to this road map, there have been over half a dozen new settlements built.

The Roadmap was a Guideline/proposal not a Legal obligation.
Israel rejected it and the Palestinians Never lived up to it.
Road map for peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Always suspicious when you Don't cite your usual Wiki- rather an 8 Year old BBC article.

There's no recognized border because Israel has occupied the territory since 1967 and continuously altered the status quo in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Incorrect as always.
There's no recognized border because Arabs rejected the 1948 proposal for such.
Israel won the WB from Jordan who Also didn't recognize the 1948 proposal and annexed the WB.
Palestinians, in the PLO Charter of 1964 (article 24) rejected WB sovereignty.. again. ...trying instead to make Jordan into the 'Palestine' it was while 'Mandate Palestine'. Black September, 1970. Jordan is 70% 'palestinian'.
Had Israel not won the '67 War, there would be no 'Palestine' as Arabs never really bought that crap.

The last Self-governing sovereign on that land was.. Israel.

 

[Degreez]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

The Roadmap was a Guideline/proposal not a Legal obligation.
Israel rejected it and the Palestinians Never lived up to it.
Road map for peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Always suspicious when you Don't cite your usual Wiki- rather an 8 Year old BBC article.

It's quite obvious it is not a legal obligation. They made a commitment to the roadmap and did not stay with it. It's a fairly simple concept to understand, even for you mbig.

Incorrect as always.

Wait, you mean Israel doesn't think it's occupying the West Bank? Because they do. You and only a handful of others have a meaningless and irrelevant opinion that they do not. Your opinion is worthless when compared to the commentary on the occupation of the West Bank by every credible non-governmental organization.

Israel won the WB from Jordan who Also didn't recognize the 1948 proposal and annexed the WB.

Israel did not "win" the West Bank from Jordan. This is why you fail epicly. There is no acquisition of territory by force. Fairly simple.

The last Self-governing sovereign on that land was.. Israel.

Umm no. The last governing sovereign on the land was the Ottoman Empire. Then the British administered the territory under the mandate. Then it was occupied by Jordan. Then it was occupied by Israel. But nice try on the historical revisionism.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Let's see how many folks who erroneously claimed that the US would NOT veto this (and attacked Obama for it) will show some integrity and admit they were wrong.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Threads merged

 

[danarhea]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Here again lies one of the US's biggest problems in the ME. Israel, regardless of negotiations or diplomacy, never ceases the expansion and development that is occurring in these disputed territories. Thus, the US vetoing this simply makes us look like a protector of all of Israel's evils. All such actions do are to hurt the image of the US in the countries we argue we want to help.

Really? What makes Israel evil here? The Arab states started a war and lost. To the victors belong the spoils. Israel's mistake was agreeing to negotiate, when they should have annexed the land they won immediately.

 

[mbig]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

It's quite obvious it is not a legal obligation. They made a commitment to the roadmap and did not stay with it. It's a fairly simple concept to understand, even for you mbig.

So why Bring it into what WAS a legal argument over 'occupied'?!? Your Now [Unwittingly] Admitted Irrelevant Diversion.
Neither side lived up to the Road map.

Wait, you mean Israel doesn't think it's occupying the West Bank? Because they do. You and only a handful of others have a meaningless and irrelevant opinion that they do not. Your opinion is worthless when compared to the commentary on the occupation of the West Bank by every credible non-governmental organization

I documented it's use was inaccurate if wide. The fact that many use it is not in dispute. Including some Israelis using it in the vernacular, if not legal sense. Many use it as a term of convenience to describe anything over the Green Line. But that line is Not a Legal border.

eneintly describe everything over the Green Line- it not with ful legal wa
Israel did not "win" the West Bank from Jordan. This is why you fail epicly. There is no acquisition of territory by force. Fairly simple.

Then perhaps you can explain to the board what happened to the West Bank in 1967, or 1949 for that matter; when Jordan annexed it from..... The arabs never really believing in that UN 'palestine' crap.

The last Self-governing sovereign on that land was.. Israel.

Umm no. The last governing sovereign on the land was the Ottoman Empire. Then the British administered the territory under the mandate. Then it was occupied by Jordan. Then it was occupied by Israel. But nice try on the historical revisionism.

Nice MISQUOTE.
I said SELF-Governing people.
My statement remains true.

But I will take your admission of Ottoman sovereignty to show it wasn't governed by any 'palestinians' and that they had NO sovereignty in 1967 (Or 1867, 1767, 1667, 1567) either.

 

[Degreez]

Let's see how many folks who erroneously claimed that the US would NOT veto this (and attacked Obama for it) will show some integrity and admit they were wrong.

I've read conflicting reports on what the US was actually going to do with the resolution so I'm sure some were confused.

 

[Degreez]

Re: US vetoes UN resolution on Israeli settlements

Really? What makes Israel evil here? The Arab states started a war and lost. To the victors belong the spoils.

Says who? International law doesn't.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I've read conflicting reports on what the US was actually going to do with the resolution so I'm sure some were confused.

So, what you are saying is that it is generally a good idea to get facts before you place blame.

 

[Degreez]

So, what you are saying is that it is generally a good idea to get facts before you place blame.

Yes, of course. Or at least don't make bold claims when there are conflicting reports.

 

[alexa]

I've read conflicting reports on what the US was actually going to do with the resolution so I'm sure some were confused.

Possibly your conflicting reports are because the US claims to want the settlements to cease but nonetheless was the only country to block censure of Israel http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/world/middleeast/19nations.html?_r=2&ref=world.

I think it's claim that censure of Israel would harm peace efforts is somewhat lame in that settlements already have imo made a 2 state solution impossible.

 

[Tashah]

I think it's claim that censure of Israel would harm peace efforts is somewhat lame in that settlements already have imo made a 2 state solution impossible.

Until either Hamas or Fatah prevails in their internecine war, a 2 state solution is indeed an impossibility.

 

[Apocalypse]

Possibly your conflicting reports are because the US claims to want the settlements to cease but nonetheless was the only country to block censure of Israel http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/world/middleeast/19nations.html?_r=2&ref=world.

I think it's claim that censure of Israel would harm peace efforts is somewhat lame in that settlements already have imo made a 2 state solution impossible.

How so? I'm curious to know why do you believe that the settlements have made the two states solution impossible and that it cannot be implemented?