 |
| |
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
But the settlers are not an obstacle to peace to the extent that the government of Israel is willing to dismantle the settlements and the settlers agree to go. They settle the land now knowing that tomorrow they will be asked to leave. They are assuming the risk of financial loss - that is, unless the Israeli government will compensate them in some fashion. |
The militant settlers do not accept that someday they will have to go or the risk of financial loss. They are where they are because they perceive themselves as heroes fighting for the land that is theirs. You can be damned sure that if their settlements are closed they will scream for compensation.
quote:
If, however, they are willing to revolt against their own government, then the do represent a problem. But I hardly think this is the case. |
Perhaps you haven't read about Baruch Goldstein, the Committee for Road Safety or Kach( http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/kach.htm ). However, as I have stated they are already an obstacle because of low level attacks on arabs and actively expanding settlements. The Israeli government is remiss in not putting them in their place as soon as possible as they only hurt the situation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
They should certainly not dismantle any settlements which are contigious with the rest of Isreal and the Palestinian borders should absorb as many contigous Arab settlements as possible with all outlaying Arab settlements also being dismantled.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we want population exchanges then let's settle the issue now and forever. |
This is largely impossible because most arab settlements contiguous with the West Bank have been surrounded by Jewish settlements to isolate them. Also arab settlements within Israel proper usually predate 1948 or have been established legally, as usually the authorities are quite thorough in stopping illegal arab settlement.
The Jewish settlements however are quite clearly illegal and have been from the beginning, only the most foolish settler wouldn't have known this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
If Israel is a member state of the UN then yes, the UN. Perhaps Israel should opt out before it completely invalidates it. Certainly since it is the org that validated Israel in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
http://electronicintifada.net/refer...oc_page89.shtml
http://electronicintifada.net/refer...oc_page90.shtml
Some interesting passages...
quote:
Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 |
quote:
Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East, |
quote:
3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; |
quote:
Adopted at the 2159th meeting by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States of America). |
Surprisingly they couldn't bring themselves to veto. Probably because it has always been the opinion of the US government that these settlements were illegal as well.
The UNSC quite clearly states that the settlements are illegal and calls on all member states to not assist or involve themselves in occupied territory settlements.
I meant that if its the position of Israel that the UN is meaningless then perhaps it should withdraw its membership, which it hasn't since it joined in 1949. Likewise for the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
This is largely impossible because most arab settlements contiguous with the West Bank have been surrounded by Jewish settlements to isolate them. Also arab settlements within Israel proper usually predate 1948 or have been established legally, as usually the authorities are quite thorough in stopping illegal arab settlement.
The Jewish settlements however are quite clearly illegal and have been from the beginning, only the most foolish settler wouldn't have known this. |
wake up and learn the facts , ....
if you believe that the info from that stupid terror site is correct , .......
illegal , no , my house aint illegal
you have no idea what so ever what a settler is or wheter ore not a settlement is illegal , .... so please dont post such stuff , .....
that is foolish , what to settle there , i have a house in a settlement that i bought a couple years ago and rented out since i am traveling most of the time , ..... guess who rents it , ....  a north african Jew , .....
as for the rest , take a look at the site of the un and the Israeli side , ..... before you post some complete crap that is funded with blood money , ...... a source that wants all jews and orhodox catholics , christians , druze and kopt to be pushed in the sea aint exactly a serious source to quote , .....
and the darn topic is one al dura not the settlements , if you want a thread on that , .....
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
So they're legal because you bought a house? Thats rich. If you want a full list of UN resolutions that are clear on the matter you can find it here, http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...resolutions.pdf . Then, take the resolution numbers and look them up here, http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm . Perhaps that will satisfy you and you'll come back saying the UN doesn't really matter, of course why would I care what you think since you're obviously biased having investment in the settlements. Beyond that its common sense, its not Israeli land.
PS - You forgot to say have a nice day. 
Last edited by gsmoove23 on 22-05-2003 at 20:03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
Yeah, the '48 borders were never recognized as permanent borders but cease fire lines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Given that israel denies citizenship to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, perhaps even they know that they are currently occupiers, not the legal owners of that land. |
Well, Israel offered citizenship to the Palestinians living in east Jerusalem when it annexed it, but most places don't recognize east Jerusalem as part of Israel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
when and by what document were the 1948 ceasefire lines recognized as legal boundaries???? UNSC 242 stated that all states in the region (including Israel) were entitled to secure and recognized boundaries, implicitly acknowledging that Israel did not have recognized boundaries with the West Bank or Gaza.
The UN may refer to Israel as occupier, but that contradicts their own position on Israels boundaries, IIUC. In fact the territories are "disputed", and final disposition awaits a negotiated settlement. The US has opposed settlement expansion not because the settlements are illegal under international law (which they are not) but because by unilaterally establishing facts on the ground, they (arguably) make discussions of territorial compromise more difficult, and thus are "obstacles to peace" |
They were recognized in 1950. And the US postion has been that settlements are a violation of the Geneva conventions, which do prohibit an occupying power from resettling its population into occupied territory. Israel is the only state that claims that the Geneva convention does not hold for the occupied territories. Your reading of 242 is rahter incomplete, givenm the call for Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied. Both Jordan and Egypt passed the buck to the Palestinians as far as resolving the territorial status of the West bank and Gaza, but the deals they made with Israel did not grant Israel a final claim over Gaza or teh west bank. Until israel has a piece of paper in it, and agreement signed with the Palestinians, about borders, then it is an occupying power, and subject to the geneva conventions, wihch clearly outlaw something like settlements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? |
Skanky! Get him boys!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-05-2003 06:51
You mean like China has invalidated it by not withdrawing from Korea or Tibet like the UN ordered? Or what about how Zimbabwe, Congo, Rowanda, Yugoslavia and a million others? 
The UN certainly does have the authority, if those actions violate some established norm of international law. And Israeli sovereignty isn't legally recognized beyond the 1948 borders - Israel (legally, not de facto) only has occupying power status beyond those borders.
|