Israeli soldiers' "cold blooded murder" of Gaza's civilians

[MMR]

They aren't.


Quote:
International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, every major organ of the United Nations, and the European Union have declared that the settlements are a serious violation of international law. Non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State to the United States Congress concluded that "the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."

Unlike you, I refer to the UN charter, article 80:



This would include the British Mandate’s granting the right to the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory. Article 6 of the Mandate encouraged "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use."

That said, it's obvious that the settlements are legal under international law, especially, when this article protects Jews rights to settle in the whole of the Land of Israel.



You seriously think that Amnesty International and other anti-Israeli propagandist organisations are the ones who would tell Israel not to implement Jews right to live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza?



The late Professor Julius Stone - considered one of the premier legal theorists - maintained that the effort to designate Israeli settlements as illegal was a "subversion. . . of basic international law principles."



CAMERA: The Debate About Israeli Settlements

Oh...my....God.......and here we have it again, Yanshuf's posts getting everyone outraged by their simplistic misreading of various documents....................I could write pages, but won't, and will only point out the most glaring oversight:

- Article 80 in the UN Charter refers to territories and states which are part of the UN's International Trsuteeship System. This does not apply to the case at hand. The League of Nations mandate system was to be superceded by the UN's trsuteeship system....BUT in the case of the British Mandate of Palestine, no transfer to the trusteeship system ever took place when Britain's mandate expired.

-Some of Stone's legal arguments no longer apply since facts on the ground have changed and agreements have been signed. Also, the context in which Stone was writing really needs to be taken into account.

-Yanshuf, you need to take a course in public international law instead of thinking you can get away with your own reading of various documents and no one who does know law won't notice. Yes, you are doing a lot of reading but there are some profound gaps in your handling of that knowledge. You would know there are other people to bring up besides Stone, and you would be making better arguments. Your knowledge is limited and self-taught, and it shows.

[MMR]

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

No L'Chaim, you are incorrect in regard to Yanshuf, and you incorrectly use the concept of "legal sovereignty". There was no sovereignty status, only mandate status. The LofN mandate ended and no other system was taken up. On top of that, the LofN mandate was undertaken by the UK, signed by the UK and administered by the UK. There was no Israel at that time, and the document also included plenty of mention of non-Jewish inhabitants. As for the US "declaring" the settlements legal or otherwise, please make a reference to such declarations.

[L'Chaim]

Here's some info on the 'settlement' issue that might clear up some misunderstandings that are out there
http:Israeli Settlements

[MMR]

I just want to add here that Yanshuf and L'Chaim clearly and glaringly have no legal background/training, and so much so that they have not even bothered to pick up a basic text on international law. Until they get such training, arguing legal points with them is frustrating, as their posts are so loaded with incorrect use of basic terminology and principles that it is pointless to continue. Julius Stone would have been mortified by them.

[MMR]

This is my last post on this thread: L'Chaim, it is clear that the legal status of the settlements is in dispute. To refer to a website such as the one above serves no purpose. If you know of an outstanding, well-informed and balanced legal article on the settlements - instead of a journalist's opinions - please, post the reference so we can all read it.

You two are just not up to the task of addressing this as a legal issue.

[seanciaran]

It is imperative, for the sake of civilization that the zionist entity known as Israel is destroyed, that it's inhabitants are dispatched to some far off place where they can do society no more harm. By and large, jews are zionists and without exception zionists are genocidal, sub human facists.

[L'Chaim]

This is my last post on this thread: L'Chaim, it is clear that the legal status of the settlements is in dispute. To refer to a website such as the one above serves no purpose. If you know of an outstanding, well-informed and balanced legal article on the settlements - instead of a journalist's opinions - please, post the reference so we can all read it.

You two are just not up to the task of addressing this as a legal issue.

Exactly! The legal status of the settlements are in dispute (some think they are illegal, others don't). You've answered your own argument and the argument of others on here who say the settlements are illegal. And people who use the UN resolutions as some sort of legal back up, should know that the UN general assembly resolutions carry no legal weight at all. The conclusion in the link I posted in my last post sums it up perfectly imo "one may legitimately support or challange Israeli settlements, but they are not illegal"

[yanshuf]

- Article 80 in the UN Charter refers to territories and states which are part of the UN's International Trsuteeship System. This does not apply to the case at hand. The League of Nations mandate system was to be superceded by the UN's trsuteeship system....BUT in the case of the British Mandate of Palestine, no transfer to the trusteeship system ever took place when Britain's mandate expired.

Article 80 certainly applies here, as it states clearly:

nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

MMR:

no transfer to the trusteeship system ever took place when Britain's mandate expired

Article 80:

until such agreements have been concluded (an agreement to replace the Mandate), nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

Wwhat MMR said just strengthens my claims.

[Nodin]

But as I said, if you care to check it out you will find that the UN general assembly resolutions carry no legal weight.

Ahem.....second time lucky....

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 [SIZE="3"]UN Security council resolutions[/SIZE], 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].

[yanshuf]

UN security council resolutions are recommendations too, as long as they are not under protocol vii!!!