Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post dug up a 1979 State Department memo that says that the Israeli settlements violate international law. The legal opinion has never been contradicted, says its author. Kessler got pushback from the Israelis:
Israeli Embassy spokesman Jonathan Peled said the opinion has been
overtaken by events. “There have been many developments in the region
since the 1970s, including a series of agreements that have stipulated
that the issue of settlements will be discussed and resolved in
permanent status negotiations with the Palestinians,” he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in a speech Sunday,
declared the West Bank to be “the land of our forefathers” but noted
that “within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community.”
They really do want one state. How long before American journalists stop talking about policy and legal opinions and look at the actual conditions of Palestinians’ lives under occupation? This is the real issue, the treatment of minorities by the “only democracy” in the Middle East.
Legal opinions from the State Dept. are of interest, but UN Security Council resolutions have the force of international law. Here is UN Security 465 of 1980 which to my knowledge, has never been rescinded The Security Council "Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East" I believe that this resolution was cited by the International Court of Justice in its 2004 judgement on the separation barrier (the wall).
"Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in a speech Sunday, declared the West Bank to be "the land of our forefathers" but noted that "within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community." What's depressing about this is how a people—and this certainly isn't exclusive to the Israelis—can so quickly and completely rationalize their way to a 180-degree different position than they previously had. Originally of course the taking of the West Bank was claimed as a mere incident to a defensive war. And I suspect that in the main the Israeli population and even the Israeli leadership saw it as such, not as a land grab. Then however it became a buffer, and a buffer only, on which some settlers were allowed to squat but with it being understood that it was all subject to some future negotiation which would no doubt return most of the territory. And now … it's a "homeland," with all that means in terms of people's willingness to fight and kill and die for same. Even if only 20-30 years ago people such as their parents never regarded it as anything but some other people's homeland.
President Obama said the were illegal today. Errr, or yesterday depending on your dateline.
Natenyahu can't even say "Palestine." Israel is a bubble and the word Palestine is the prick that can pop it. Palestine is suppose to be a lie, and the Palestinians too. It's how Israel justifies it's very existence, to deny the real inhabitant's existence. It won't endure if "Israel" is exposed for what it is. A foreign invader colony. Then the cat is out of the bag, people won't want to support it. Those whacko Christians may cave in. Turn their backs as if they were never in on the big lie. That would spell the end. It's funny to see Needayahoo dance around the word Palestine. Say it, man, P-a-l-e-s-t-i-n-e!
PM-But there never was an Arab or Muslim state called "Palestine". They can't even pronounce it in Arabic, so they changed it to "Falastine". They called the region "Syria". So the non-Jews living there were never called "Palestinians". Before 1948, the term "Palestinian" meant "Jew" because the Arabs rejected it. The first use of the term "Naqba" was around 1920 when the British set up a separate entity called "Palestine". This was considered a "naqba-disaster" because they said they were "Syrians".
Unfortunately Israel has little or no respect for laws unless they are their own and even then I suspect they can ignore them at will. Obviously they believe they are above International Law, have contempt for the United Nations (Would they be in existence without them?) and are not going to accept their best buddy's assessment in 1979 or 2009 that their settlements are illegal. They're convinced they,re god's chosen people, which places them above the law. They have a strange relationship with born-again Christians who also believe they've been chosen by god. The born-agains are supporting Israel and waiting to be raptured up to heaven. Israel is also supporting Israel and grabbing all of the "holy land" on earth. Forget about heaven, who knows if it even exists. It's for certain that the holy lands exist and should belong to Israel, even if it's illegal.
"They really do want one state." It's more than that. They (the Israeli government) already have one state. They can only wiggle out of this fact – and the inevitable conclusion that it is an *apartheid* state – by legal formalisms. The land both inside and outside the green line is under complete Israeli sovereignty, is ruled by Israeli laws and policed by Israeli forces. To claim that the West Bank is not de facto part of Israel is preposterous. Israel is not *planning* to illegally annex that territory or *preparing* to do so. They already did annex it. All of it, including the currently ostensibly PA-controlled regions. This is the quacks-like-a-duck reality.
Planet Michelle wrote: "Natenyahu [sic] can't even say "Palestine." Israel is a bubble and the word Palestine is the prick that can pop it." That really hasn't happened though, has it? (Hastening to say that I don't think Israel proper should be "pricked.") That is, despite the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" being in common currency now for decades. The fact is in our post-literate/electronic media world people just don't seem to really think about the meaning of words used like I think they did when books and written materials were portal through which people considered the world. There just seems to be something about a book or the written word that is conducive to giving some thought to the real meaning of words. For example consider further Netanyahu's use of the word "homeland" to describe the West Bank. What, after all, does this say about Israel's willingness to give *any* of it back? Before, when it was a mere "buffer," well that was something different. But now…. Even more obvious and worse, and yet so far as I can see utterly uncommented upon, consider all the unbelievable concern and attention and focus Netanyahu and indeed a large part of the entire Israeli government is putting on this issue of the growth/"natural growth" of settlements: Well, what does this say about their intentions and beliefs regarding a peace deal in anything like the forseeable future? (Much less in the two years or so that Obama seems to believe they can be argued into?) The fact is that they simply must know and believe that no, they are never going to agree to anything in that forseeable future because otherwise what difference would a mere year or so of mere "natural growth" mean? Or indeed a mere year or so of "unnatural" growth? Yet, despite this seeming to be the absolute *only* meaning that can be ascribed to Israel's almost hysterical concern over the issue, its significance simply seems to be utterly missed. But there it is; the Israeli government and Netanyahu in particular simply and absolutely believe that there's no way they are going to make a final peace deal in the forseeable future, period. In essence the future has been announced, even if nobody is listening.
It's a weak argument. If whatever community aren't a nation, does that also mean that they loose the right to their land? Is there a law that only inside nations people can own property and if the people were part of a larger empire that falls apart their landownership becomes void turning the land into terra nullius or up for grabs? The UN records. http://books.google.de/books?id=l8amWU3Z800C I always want to read more than I actually can. But this looks interesting.
Canaanite: a member of an ancient Semitic people who occupied Canaan before it was conquered by the Israelites.
such a deal, how can a jew refuse being fed real pie for free by a loon who works for pie in the sky?
I agree. Obama specifically mentions the settlements, and in response Netanyahu specifically ignores the settlements. And then the latter specifically describes a future state devoid of sovereignty. Nothing will change unless Obama confronts Congress in public view, and mentions foreign aid leverage.
I'm afraid Nombre that the Israeli leadership and by extension the people have always believed in the Biblical Eretz Yisrael and have been working toward obtaining it. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's" frontiers in details as follows: "to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan" (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 87) Click here to view the "Greater Israel" map that was submitted by the Zionists to the peace conference after WWI. http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Stor...
Theodor Meron, then the chief legal advisor at the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967, also had reached the same conclusion. He wrote a legal opinion saying that settlements would violate international law. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-ea... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-ea...
Do you understand what an occupation is? Is Iraq part of the United States? There was no annexation of the WB and Gaza was given to the Pals.
Palestinians cannot pronounce "P" because there is no sound "P" in arabic. But just because Paris, France is pronounced Baris, it does not mean that the town itself "does not exist".
Is Iraq dotted with American settlements and cut up by roads connecting those settlements? Does Iraq have no government? Has Iraq been kept under continuous and complete US control for more than 4 decades? Is Iraq completely subject to US civil and criminal jurisdiction? You say that it looks like a duck, moves like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it quite obviously is an elephant. Exactly the type of formalistic bullshit we're used to.
Proof that Birthright teens are not kosher?- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093609.html
I agree, that's another silly argument. The usual anti-Arab non-sense. The specific phonetic pattern of a language doesn't tell us anything about the usage. But your transcription of Paris is a bit odd. It surely is a "p" and not a "b". And the "s" in the end is mute. I can't use phonetic symbols here, but it is something like "pari"
Can we have a more sophisticated analysis of which settlements are illegal than simply referring to the '48 armistice line? What makes a settlement inside the green line legal and one outside the line illegal? "Extremists" on both sides of the quarrel ask this question and it is a legitimate one. There is a spectrum of circumstances for the establishment of each settlement ranging from blatant confiscation of private property and displacement of indigenous inhabitants to settlement on uninhabited and unclaimed state land – whether inside the lines established after the '48 war or the '67 war. Settlers – regardless of which side of which line they settled on – have a range of personalities ranging from those who are delusional thieves to those who badly need charm school to those who are decent folks. On the road to reconciliation in the one country solution – (serious people need to quit discussing the two state solution except when exposing it as a fraud)- the settlements must be examined and addressed by the degree of dispossession and displacement caused, not by what side of a line they are on.
Forty US organizations sent Congress an open letter today to attach conditions on this year's (increased) aid to Israel stuck into the budget hearing today: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/israel160609.html
You might be right, but it doesn't mean that the '67 war was launched with an offensive, aggrandizing purpose, which I don't think it was in the main.
The '67 war was when the USS Liberty was bombed by Israel. 34 Americans died, 171 wounded. The Liberty was an intelligence gathering ship, not a war ship, it was not a threat to Israel. One of the things Israel didn't want the world to know was that it was murdering its Egyptian POWs. Nothing has changed. I suspect nothing changed in the real motives for the '67 war, meaning expanding Israel's borders. In fact I think it was also Ben-Gurion who said through war we will expand our borders which is why Israel didn't agree to the borders in '48 (but I've got to run so I can't look it up right now. Maybe someone else knows).
This is the real issue, the treatment of minorities by the "only democracy" in the Middle East. when looking at 'the real issue' of the "only democracy" in the Middle East and the actual conditions of Palestinians' lives in the context of one state it is essential to not reference Palestinians as 'minorities'.
What do Israelis have a right to? It's more than a right to the West Bank that has to be questioned.
Are you kidding me?????? "Falasteen" is simply the arabic pronounciation for "Palestine" since the sound for "P" does not exist in the arabic alphabet. This is the same as "Egyptian" = "Masri" in arabic. Palestinians don't reject Egyptians simply because the arabic name is different. My grandfather NEVER identified himself as a Syrian. He always said he was Palestinian. And he was born sometime around 1905. What a ridiculous argument!! "Palestinian" never equated to only a jewish inhabitant of the area. There were Palestinian jews, christians, and muslims. Where are you getting your information from? Oh wait, your name is bar_kochba…so I guess I know.
"Israeli Embassy spokesman Jonathan Peled said the opinion has been overtaken by events. "There have been many developments in the region since the 1970s, including a series of agreements that have stipulated that the issue of settlements will be discussed and resolved in permanent status negotiations with the Palestinians," he said." Gosh, what a Witty guy!
What, no mention of US official policy, international law since Nuremberg, regarding the illegal nature of the settlements? Is this 1859 or 2009?
Ah, so what's the dim DUI bible-thumper Shrub to say? Should the USA follow him?
The right of return for instance is in no way predicated on the refugees being 'of one nation': had the non-Jewish population of Palestine been made up of 30 % Japanese, 20 % Belgians, 10 % Spanish and the remainder 'generic Arabs' the right of return of these people would in no way have been affected. Similarly, whether Jews are a 'real People, you know!' (or not) and how old that people is, has no bearing on its right to self-determination or not. Those who do invoke that kind of argument, like bar_kochba132, are racist ethnocentrics, in no way different from white supremacists.
I am someone else who knows. And I happen to know LOTS about the Six Day War and the Liberty incident. So I can say, authoritatively, that you are a propagandizing idiot. And I can demonstrate that easily here. In fact, I will… In 1967, Israel was attacked by the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq (which doesn't even have a border with Israel). Israel was outnumbered by more than 10 to 1 in EVERY MEASURE – soldiers, aircraft, ships, tanks, cannon, etc. Israel was about 10 km wide in the center and extraordinarily vulnerable. What kind of madman would pick a fight with as many countries as possible when he is outgunned so massively?? The plain truth is that the ARABS BEGAN THE WAR in 1967 and were not shy about repeating their aim of "pushing the Jews into the sea". Only a fool would believe otherwise… which explains your previous posting…
My father was a Palestinean. Very Jewish, too. That your Syrian grandfather considered himself Palestinean is fascinating. It supports the claim of disposessed Palestineans to get their land back from the Occupying Syrian regime. Syrian Occupied Palestine… But don't feel offended. Jordan is by far the greatest criminal here, occupying fully 3/4 of Palestine on the Jordanian Occupied East Bank.
YOu are so wrong with the facts… maybe you should just be ignored. Israel has NOT annexed Judea and Samaria (aka WB) and thus the resident Arabs there are not Israeli citizens. Jerusalem HAS been annexed – and its Arab residents thus became Israeli citizens. As for "settlements", Israel has RE-ESTABLISHED Jewish towns and villages that were ethnically cleansed by Islamic Palestinean fascists earlier in the 20th century. That the Arabs don't like it (or that Hussein-Obama doesn't) doesn't make this wrong . The previous poster is right in questioning whether you even know what an occupation is…
Hi Jake. While I obviously disagree with Laurie that the '67 war was launched with an aggrandizing intent by Israel (speaking generally), I wonder if you don't go overboard in saying that "ARABS BEGAN THE WAR." Isn't it pretty clear that Israel launched the first strike? That's what my memory of my readings say, as does a quick reading of the Wikipedia entry. Not that such makes it an "aggressive" or "offensive" war; I think there is such a thing as a justifiable pre-emptive strike, but just in terms of strict historical accuracy, Israel did indeed launch the first military strike in that war, didn't it? I'd also just observe that however right Israel was in launching that '67 strike and in not having any aggrandizing purpose at the time that seeing Netanyahu and much of Israel now claiming the West Bank as "homeland" goes pretty far towards delegitimizing itself in that war. However just one's original purpose is for doing something, it's only of academic interest later if you continue doing it (such as hanging on to the West Bank) for unjust reasons such as saying "God gave it to us."
1) Egypt imposed a naval blockade on Israel. This is a causus belli – declaration and act of war. Legally, Egypt started the war. Nasser made no secret of his plan to "push the Jews into the sea". After Nasser refused to remove his blockade, Israel RESPONDED by attacking his airbases on June 5. 2) Judea and Samaria (aka WB) were not legally the territory of any country. It was (and remains, legally) DISPUTED TERRITORY. The term "Occupied Territory" is discriminatory, seeing as the final status of the land has never been legally recognized internationally. Thus, Israel took control of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, which it always claimed. So-called "settlements" are largely Jewish towns and villages that were ethnically cleansed by Arabs and Jordanians earlier in the 20th Century. "Hanging on to the West Bank" is perfectly reasonable seeing as it belongs to Israel, historically, the other claimant has refused to live up to peaceful agreements and no one else is able to administer it. I only work with facts and logic. Makes life simple.