LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksNot according to the UN. Not according to the overwhelming majority of international legal opinion. You may selectively quote what you will on the matter, but it changes nothing.Originally Posted by yanshuf
Not according to the UN. Not according to the overwhelming majority of international legal opinion. You may selectively quote what you will on the matter, but it changes nothing.
The legality of the settlements emanates from the UN charter that retains the rights of Jews to settle the whole of the land of Israel.
I don't quote selectively, I quote what matters: the obligation of the UN to the rules its establishing members decided on.
The question is when an opinion matters. It matters when its consistent and obligatory.
When its not, it's just a double standard.
The settlements are therefore legal, by the force of former agreements and the rights gained in the League of Nations.
The UN can not retract the rights no matter what opinion you quote and who stands behind that opinion.
Bíonn dhá insint ar scéal!
Can you provide - preferably with links - the UN's official definition of 'the land of Israel'?The legality of the settlements emanates from the UN charter that retains the rights of Jews to settle the whole of the land of Israel.
Virtually no one with any background on such matters agrees with that reading. Therefore, essentially, you're wrong.
Well your latching on to "article 80" there - and when talking about the mandate, you left out this part....
British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia......of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,
So? This is about civil and religious rights not national rights. They have the PA and they have Israeli Arab members of Knesset. Other than that, they have the Waqf and Christian churches.of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,
I gave in my former posts quotes from legal advisors who do think like me in these matters, and some others who support this opinion from another point.
As I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, article 80 exists in the charter and is supposed to be taken into account when matters of its concern are raised.
I don't see the problem with this article, it precedes all resolutions in the matter.
Bíonn dhá insint ar scéal!
Actually Yanshuf is quite right in what he says. If you check it out you will find that the UN General Assembly resolutions carry no legal weight. The US constantly votes against the UN resolutions condemning settlements. Most US governments also viewed the settlements as legal. The carter administration didn't, but that decision was reversed by the Regan administration.
Israel's occupation and settlements in the West bank are not illegal. And prof Schwebel, former judge on the Hague's international court of justice, wrote on this matter and made judgements on this matter. He distinguishes between territory acquired in "aggressive conquest", such as Japan and the Nazis in WWII, and land taken in self-defence, such as Gaza and the West bank in 1967. He also distinguishes between the taking of land legally held by another nation i.e. German occupation of France, Holland, Belgium etc. as opposed to taking land illegally held i.e West bank which was illegally held by Jordan 1948 - 67. The last legal sovereignty over the West bank, prior to 1967, was that of the League of nations mandate, which actively encouraged Jewish settlement of the land.
So Yanshuf is right in what he says.
Am still waiting for a current, official UN definition of 'the land of Israel'.
According to the BBC, the "overwhelming view" of the international community is that the settlements are illegal based upon Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. [51]
The consensus view is largely based on UN Security council resolutions, including resolutions 446, 452, 465, 471 and 476 which find the settlements to be illegal. [52]. In Resolution 465 the settlements are even described as a "flagrant violation". Separately also the legal arm of the UN, the International Court of Justice, has found the settlements to be illegal under international law [53].Israeli settlement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe European Union considers the settlements to be illegal[56]. Similarly contracting states to the Geneva Convention declared in 2001 the settlements to be illegal [57].
(My bold/underline)
Overwhelming really.
I have to say I would have expected a more nuanced approach from yourself, from what I've seen of your posts.
But as I said, if you care to check it out you will find that the UN general assembly resolutions carry no legal weight. And certain states may declare the settlements illegal, but then other states, like the US declare them legal. However prior to Israel's take over and settlements in the West Bank, the only legal sovereignty of that area was the League of nations mandate and that actively encouraged Jewish settlement of the area. So Yanshuf is right in what he says
Since I've given up hope for the Israeli embassy rep to provide an official UN definition of 'the land of Israel', I'll ask you for a link to an official US source which 'declares' the settlements 'legal'.n other states, like the US declare them legal
Reply With Quote