Israel to Run For Security Counsel Seat in 2019.[W:73:82]

[ecofarm]

Their use of white phosphorous during Cast Lead is atrocious, not to mention a war crime.

The chem did nothing that a bomb could not. It was meant to conceal tank movement and should not have been used, given circumstances.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Who disputes Israel's ownership of the West Bank and Gaza other than those that live there? This is a case of self determination not disputed territory and as such places Israel in a position completely contrary to what the UN is supposed to be about.

Except that the territory called the west bank is not entirely lived on by a people seeking self determination. that for historical reasons that territory had been controlled for less than 20 years by another country and administered as a single unit does not mean that those people living in a part of it claiming self determination have a right to all of that land as part of self determination.

And the Palestinians have been repeatedly offered self-determination on most of the land they claim, but they have been willing to accept it in exchange for giving up their claim on the rest of Israel (whether through open warfare or the "right of return") and agreeing to stop trying to murder Israelis and to give Israel the security guarantees that it would have needed to avoid the occupation in the first place.

I am still waiting for the Palestinians to say yes to somkething, but I have a feeling it will always be so.

 

[Sadling]

CJ2.0,

I believe this is what you requested:

Israeli settlements are illegal according to every basic reading of international law:

•Article 46 of the Hague Convention prohibits confiscation of private property in occupied territory. Article 55 of the same document stipulates that "the occupying state shall be regarded only as administrator of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates... It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

•Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly stipulates that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

•UN Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) and 465 (1980) both condemned the settlements. Rex. 446 stated "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." Likewise, in 465, the Security Council called upon Israel to "dismantle the existing settlements." Most recently, in February 2010, a resolution was introduced and supported by 14 members of the Security Council, "reaffirming that Israeli settlements (including East Jerusalem) are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. It also demanded once again that Israel immediately and cease all settlement activities. The U.S. was the sole dissenter, thus vetoing the resolution.

•The 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice declared that "Israeli settlements.., including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace.."

CEPR - Illegal Israeli Settlements

_________________________________________________________________________

Eric Rozenman's Dec. 11 Op-Ed article, "Israeli settlements are more than legitimate," is legal nonsense that disregards history. He is correct in his observation that Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine permitted "close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes," but the conclusions he then draws are flatly wrong.

Rozenman fails to acknowledge that since its inception, Israel has never claimed legal title to all of the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine. On the contrary, it has repeatedly denied such a claim in official statements and acts. On May 22, 1948, soon after Israel's declaration of independence, the country's representative to the U.N. Security Council stated that its territory was "the area outlined in the map appended to the resolution of 29 November 1947, as constituting the area assigned to the Jewish state" -- namely that area accorded to the nascent Israel by the U.N. Partition Plan contained in General Assembly Resolution 181. This did not include the West Bank. The same view was consistently expressed by Israeli courts. In 1950, Israel's Supreme Court ruled, "The territory of the state of Israel does not coincide with all the territory under the former mandate." Israel thus refused to be seen as the successor state to the Palestinian mandate. Accordingly, it refused to accede to treaties that bound the mandate and refused to pay the public debt that Palestine owed to Britain. How then can there be a right of Israeli settlement in the West Bank, territory to which Israel itself has never made legal claim?

International law is clear: Israeli settlements are illegal - Los Angeles Times

You know, you could google this stuff as well as I can . . .

 

[CJ 2.0]

CJ2.0,

I believe this is what you requested:

Israeli settlements are illegal according to every basic reading of international law:

•Article 46 of the Hague Convention prohibits confiscation of private property in occupied territory. Article 55 of the same document stipulates that "the occupying state shall be regarded only as administrator of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates... It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

•Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly stipulates that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

•UN Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) and 465 (1980) both condemned the settlements. Rex. 446 stated "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." Likewise, in 465, the Security Council called upon Israel to "dismantle the existing settlements." Most recently, in February 2010, a resolution was introduced and supported by 14 members of the Security Council, "reaffirming that Israeli settlements (including East Jerusalem) are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. It also demanded once again that Israel immediately and cease all settlement activities. The U.S. was the sole dissenter, thus vetoing the resolution.

•The 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice declared that "Israeli settlements.., including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace.."

CEPR - Illegal Israeli Settlements

_________________________________________________________________________

Eric Rozenman's Dec. 11 Op-Ed article, "Israeli settlements are more than legitimate," is legal nonsense that disregards history. He is correct in his observation that Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine permitted "close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes," but the conclusions he then draws are flatly wrong.

Rozenman fails to acknowledge that since its inception, Israel has never claimed legal title to all of the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine. On the contrary, it has repeatedly denied such a claim in official statements and acts. On May 22, 1948, soon after Israel's declaration of independence, the country's representative to the U.N. Security Council stated that its territory was "the area outlined in the map appended to the resolution of 29 November 1947, as constituting the area assigned to the Jewish state" -- namely that area accorded to the nascent Israel by the U.N. Partition Plan contained in General Assembly Resolution 181. This did not include the West Bank. The same view was consistently expressed by Israeli courts. In 1950, Israel's Supreme Court ruled, "The territory of the state of Israel does not coincide with all the territory under the former mandate." Israel thus refused to be seen as the successor state to the Palestinian mandate. Accordingly, it refused to accede to treaties that bound the mandate and refused to pay the public debt that Palestine owed to Britain. How then can there be a right of Israeli settlement in the West Bank, territory to which Israel itself has never made legal claim?

International law is clear: Israeli settlements are illegal - Los Angeles Times

You know, you could google this stuff as well as I can . . .

Well, I didn't request anything, so perhaps you are mixing me up with someone else.

having said that,

1. Most of the lands in the WB are state lands, so they are not confiscated from anybody.

2. Israel is not deporting or transfering anybody. Both of those terms imply a compulsory relocation of individuals. As an example forcibly relocating Israeli Arabs to towns across the green line would contravene this restriction. Permitting freedom of movement and settlment to citizens who chose to move into territories that ar disputed (and even providing subsidies for basic infrastructure to do so) does not fit within the intent or the language of the prohibition.

3. Under which titles (the sec council passess resolutions under different provisions, which have different implications).

4. Couldn't care less about the political farce of various ICJ decisions.

In any event, to tie things back to what is really going on here, the Palestinians could have peace and independence whenever they want it. They just need to compromise on territorial ambitions, stop promoting and trying to murder Jews, limit their ability to murder Jews in the future, and drop the ridiculous demand that they get to destroy Israel demographically since they cannot do it militarily.

But, you see, you and I know they are never going to do this (I do consciously. I suspect you would if you were prepared to look at the issue honestly). because the Palestinian leadership is not seeking independence. They are seeking to continue to fight against Israel in the hope of one day defeating and destroying it. Sure the Palestinians will bank any concessions that advance their interests so long as those concessions do not require them to give up their claims on Israel or their ability to continue to fight Israel, but that is not because of any interest in independence.

Recall they were offered indepednence on virtually all the land they say they are asking for more than a dozen years ago now, and instead chose to plan and launch a terrorist war against Israel's civilian population.

It is not the settlments that are obsticles to peace, becasue there are NO prospects of peace so long as peace is not an objective of the Palestinians. And as long as the Palestinians are more focused on Israel's destruction than on their own independence, then screw them. whatever happens to their territorial aspirations is their own fault.

 

[Sadling]

CJ2.0,

I did mistake you for another poster (Lord of Planar), and for that I apologize.

According to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 lays out the requirements for statehood: a population living on a defined territory with a government that can enter into relations with other governments. The Palestinians have that.

I understand what you want to believe about this issue, but Palestine is already legally a sovereign state and is seeking membership of the United Nations, not statehood. On November 15, 1988, Palestine declared its independence. Since then, 130 nations have recognized Palestine, some having opened Palestinian embassies in their capitals. This fact was not reported in The U.S. media. For Palestinians and those countries that recognize them, Israeli troops are occupying a sovereign nation.

I also understand that you didn't research this issue to the extent necessary to know that in November of 2012, more than two-thirds of the world body's 193 member states approved a resolution upgrading the Palestinians' status from an observer to a nonmember observer state. It passed 138-9, with 41 abstentions.

And off course, illegal settlements are an obstacle to peace!

I'm pressed for time but will offer more later.

 

[mbig]

Israeli settlements are illegal according to every basic reading of international law:
•Article 46 of the Hague Convention prohibits confiscation of private property in occupied territory. Article 55 of the same document stipulates that "the occupying state shall be regarded only as administrator of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates... It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."
•Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly stipulates that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

You're still not debating this, merely Link-Dumping pro-palestine articles.

Geneva convention does Not apply to the situation.
1. Israelis were Not forcibly transfered into Palestine.
2. Geneva Convention ONLY applies to the territories of "High Contracting Parties"; there is No such party on the Palestine side.
see
Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention | United with Israel

•UN Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) and 465 (1980) both condemned the settlements....
•The 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice declared that "Israeli settlements.., including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace.."

Again, these are predictable UN polls NOT justifiable law.

http://thecepr.org/index.php?option...l-israeli-settlements&catid=6:memos&Itemid=34

CEPR - Director's Welcome Statement

Eric Rozenman's Dec. 11 Op-Ed article, "Israeli settlements are more than legitimate," is legal nonsense that disregards history. He is correct in his observation that Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine permitted "close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes," but the conclusions he then draws are flatly wrong. Rozenman fails to acknowledge that since its inception, Israel has never claimed legal title to all of the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine. On the contrary, it has repeatedly denied such a claim in official statements and acts. On May 22, 1948, soon after Israel's declaration of independence, the country's representative to the U.N. Security Council stated that its territory was "the area outlined in the map appended to the resolution of 29 November 1947, as constituting the area assigned to the Jewish state" -- namely that area accorded to the nascent Israel by the U.N. Partition Plan contained in General Assembly Resolution 181. This did not include the West Bank. The same view was consistently expressed by Israeli courts. In 1950, Israel's Supreme Court ruled, "The territory of the state of Israel does not coincide with all the territory under the former mandate." Israel thus refused to be seen as the successor state to the Palestinian mandate. Accordingly, it refused to accede to treaties that bound the mandate and refused to pay the public debt that Palestine owed to Britain. How then can there be a right of Israeli settlement in the West Bank, territory to which Israel itself has never made legal claim?

International law is clear: Israeli settlements are illegal - Los Angeles Times
You know, you could google this stuff as well as I can . . .

I understand it, no need for Google except as backup/demo.

The Israeli court decision you cite is 1950.
War Often Changes borders: you know, 1967.
After which Israel offered BACK the won land in exchange for mere Recognition. The Arabs refused (Khartoum, August 1967)
Only thus "occupation".
And Of course Israel won the Land from Jordan who had annexed it in 1950, Not/never 'palestine'.
Arabs didn't buy the 'palestine' thing until they lost the land.

Subsequently Resolution 242, November 1967, Called for NEW NEGOTIATED "secure and recognized" boundaries. Fully aware that This would mean a slightly Larger Israel with buffers to prevent future wars.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...n-242-1967-borders-illegal-even-occupied.html
So there wasn't and still is Not a border on which to base "occupied", "illegal".

Palestinians, Beyond Rejecting a state/the land in 1948, also rejected it in their 1964 Charter.

Note: In the original PLO charter written in 1964, before the Six-Day War, article 24 was different:

"Article 24: This Organization does Not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields."​

After the Six-Day War, when jurisdiction over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip went from Jordan and Egypt to Israel, the PLO rewrote article 24 and included those areas in their political /military objectives along with the rest of Israel.

So it's Clear that the land is "disputed" legally speaking, had/has No legitimate Sovereign (Not subject to Geneva) and Was Rejected by the Arab world and Palestinians.
The last acknowledged/agreed-on by Both sides, UN Res, 242, says the same.
Not just legally, but practically, everyone knows there will be border adjustments before peace.

 

[Serenity]

Moderator's Warning:

Israel to Run For Security Counsel Seat in 2019. That's the topic of this thread. There's numerous other threads where you can discuss settlements, disputed land etc in depth if you so wish. Focus on the topic only please.

 

[CJ 2.0]

CJ2.0,

I did mistake you for another poster (Lord of Planar), and for that I apologize.

No worries, of course.

According to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 lays out the requirements for statehood: a population living on a defined territory with a government that can enter into relations with other governments. The Palestinians have that.

I believe the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own. But the current predominant goal (and indeed the creation of) the Palestinian national identity is to oppose Jewish claims and efforts to achieve and maintain self determination. this is the core goal of the Palestinians, and until they drop it they do not get to play the victim and claim weapons (including independence) that they intend to use to continue their fight against the Jews.

I understand what you want to believe about this issue, but Palestine is already legally a sovereign state and is seeking membership of the United Nations, not statehood. On November 15, 1988, Palestine declared its independence. Since then, 130 nations have recognized Palestine, some having opened Palestinian embassies in their capitals. This fact was not reported in The U.S. media. For Palestinians and those countries that recognize them, Israeli troops are occupying a sovereign nation.

They are not a legally sovereign state. I understand what they have said, but facts and reality say something different. If they declared independence on all the territories of Israel, I'm sure they could get a big chunk of "recognition" too, but that of course would mean squat since they are not in control of those territories. And I know what the PLO did while it was openly fighting against Israel's existence. It is now called "Lawfare" and is one of the Palestinians' most successful weapons to continue their efforts to undo Jewish sovereignty in Israel.

I also understand that you didn't research this issue to the extent necessary to know that in November of 2012, more than two-thirds of the world body's 193 member states approved a resolution upgrading the Palestinians' status from an observer to a nonmember observer state. It passed 138-9, with 41 abstentions.

Which I obviously am aware of too, but don't really care.

Like I said, the Palestinians can have their own state when they are ready for it. it may not be on all the territory they want, it may not be as jew free as they want, and it may not have the same scoep to continue to wage war on the Jews as they want, but it is available to them at a time of their choosing.

You need to acknowledge this. it will allow you to understand how you may be able to actually help them achieve the goals you want for them (which at this point are different then the goals they have themselves).

And off course, illegal settlements are an obstacle to peace!

Of course. Except they arn't, since they can be moved, and to the extent the territory they sit on will remain part of Israel in any negotiated agreement, increasing intensity of land use is irrelevant to the scope of territorial compromise.

And of course, the fact that you don't have any feathers is not an impediment to you flying if you also have no wings. since the Palestinians have no intention and have never had the intention of agreeing to end their conflict with the jews for the entire area they describe as "Palestine", what Israel does or doesn't do does not matter. Peace is impossible so long as the Palestinians' goals and intentions remain unchanged.

I'm pressed for time but will offer more later.

look forward to it.

Edit: Sorry, read from the back forward and didn't see the mod notice. Happy to take this up in another thread.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Wiggen,

Great unwashed masses?? Really? Who dost thou think thou art?

I'm guessing washed.

 

[Sadling]

CJ2.0,

You seem to be in denial of the facts that I have provided you. You say you understand what the Palestinians have said, but that facts and reality say something different. What you're failing to understand, even when shown, is that not only do the Palestinians say it, but that the vast majority of the world are saying it, too! That is clear. How long you decide to ignore that is up to you.


EDIT: Sorry, read from the back forward and didn't see the mod notice.

 

[CJ 2.0]

CJ2.0,

You seem to be in denial of the facts that I have provided you. You say you understand what the Palestinians have said, but that facts and reality say something different. What you're failing to understand, even when shown, is that not only do the Palestinians say it, but that the vast majority of the world are saying it, too! That is clear. How long you decide to ignore that is up to you.


EDIT: Sorry, read from the back forward and didn't see the mod notice.

And sorry, last time for off topic, but I don't deny the facts. I just discount empty words and posturing and focus on the Palestinians' actual intentions. Whenever they actually want peace and independence, they will get it. Until they are prepared to give up on their original goals, they won't. Sucks to be them, I guess, but it's their own fault.

Best,

 

[Sadling]

Well, hell, I'm sorry, too, and this is my last time being off topic as well, but I believe that the world (international community) has spoken, and you're not OK with that because it's not what Israel wants. So be it . . .

 

[Andalublue]

Israel plans to run for a rotating seat on the UN Security Council for the first time ever for 2019-2020, its envoy said on Thursday.

"We're going all out to win," Ambassador Ron Prosor told the Reuters news agency, adding, "It's about time."

Prosor said Israel will be vying against Germany and Belgium for two seats allotted to the "Western European and Others Group." Technically Israel should be a member of the Asia-Pacific Group but has been blocked from that group by Muslim states.

Winning a Security Council seat requires a two-thirds majority in the 193-nation General Assembly, and UN diplomats predicted that it will not be easy for the Israel to win.....snip~

Israel to Run for Security Council Seat in 2019 - Inside Israel - News - Israel National News

What do you think about this. Sure to cause a major uproar in the UN.....huh? Note that Israel was suppose to be part of the counsel for the Asian Pacific Group region but was and has always been blocked by Muslim states. Israel was going to go for the Spot in 2018 but Germany blocked them stating they would go for a spot. Which Israel then filed a formal complaint. Thoughts upon the matter?

I suspect they'll find it very difficult to gain supporters given their record of ignoring UN resolutions. Of course most, not all, Moslem states will vote against them but I suspect so will those that believe that you need countries sitting on the SC that believe in what the UN stands for and what it seeks to achieve. Israel appears to be antagonistic to the UN's role in the world.

 

[ecofarm]

I suspect they'll find it very difficult to gain supporters given their record of ignoring UN resolutions.

Israel has not violated a UNSCR. What specific violations do you feel disqualify it from service on the council?

Israel appears to be antagonistic to the UN's role in the world.

It's a democracy.

 

[Andalublue]

Israel has not violated a UNSCR. What specific violations do you feel disqualify it from service on the council?

UNSCR 242?

It's a democracy.

Non sequitur.

 

[ido_]

but I suspect so will those that believe that you need countries sitting on the SC that believe in what the UN stands for and what it seeks to achieve.

Ah, you mean countries like Syria, Lebanon and Lybia ?

 

[Andalublue]

Ah, you mean countries like Syria, Lebanon and Lybia ?

No. (10 characters)

 

[MadLib]

UNSCR 242?

Wasn't it the Khartoum agreement by the Arab nations to boycott negotiations with Israel that led to the latter's inability to withdraw?

 

[Apocalypse]

Of course most, not all, Moslem states will vote against them but I suspect so will those that believe that you need countries sitting on the SC that believe in what the UN stands for and what it seeks to achieve.

You mean the same countries that voted in Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Qatar, UAE, etc. into the council - and that's just in recent years - did so because they thought those countries 'believed in what the UN stands for'. Not a stupid assertion at all there, nope, nothing but common sense and an objective view on reality.