Jump to content

Israeli War Crimes - Part 2


Recommended Posts

On 10/14/2016 at 4:02 AM, marcus said:

The evidence is that neither Goldstone or the UN have withdrawn the report. Meaning that your allegation that Goldstone withdrew the report is simply not true. 

Israel continuously commit war crimes with their actions against Palestinians and others around them. From their one-sided attacks on Gaza to the illegal annexation of Palestinian land and transferring of Jewish Israelis into Palestinian land.  

No the evidence is that Goldstone openly repudiated his own report to distance himself from it and it is the UN not he who has refused to withdraw it but can no longer use it because of his repudiation. Quoting a report when the author of the report repudiates its findings is absurd-as absurd as you pretending Goldstone's repudiatipn of the report was just that. When a person who writes a report then writes his report is wrong, its a repudiation. The repudiation is most certainly an act of withdrawing what he once stated.

You can pretend he didn't but its public record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 647
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My earlier response to "Ghost" applies to you "Kactus" and everyone I named.. You all joined in accusing Israel of being a criminal state after this board was initally flooded with Goldstone report claims by Naomi Glover. You all  joined in calling Israel a criminal state.

Your denial it based on Godlstone's report. Go on prove me wrong.

Tell me you disagree with the Goldstone report and did not use it as the basis for your conclusions that Israel is a criminal state. Go on/ Finish it. Say you do not agree with the Goldstone report and you did not join in on pissing  on Israel based on it.

Repudiate Goldstone. Better still provide your evidence for your allegations if its not Goldstone.

You have no evidence. None of you do. What you have is subjective name calling, subjective, unsubstantiated accusations you can't prove.

Each time you've been asked to provide legal evidence, not a shred. Not a treaty. Not a treaty section.

This thread is a sham. It made allegations it could not prove. 

My exercise right now is to show how similiar in response all the anti Israelis posts are and the pattern and  timing of how the names in flow and how not one accusation has been proven, not one..

You never mentioned Goldstone. Right. Am I to assume because you don't mention the specific names of each Israeli citizen you don't hate them for being Israeli? Lol.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Rue said:

My earlier response to "Ghost" applies to you "Kactus" and everyone I named.. You all joined in accusing Israel of being a criminal state after this board was initally flooded with Goldstone report claims by Naomi Glover. You all  joined in calling Israel a criminal state.

Your denial it based on Godlstone's report. Go on prove me wrong.

Maybe you can show me where I agreed with anything or even quoted the Goldstone report?  Yeah thought so. I have not read it, so I would not know if I agree with it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Rue said:

No the evidence is that Goldstone openly repudiated his own report

Back to the false claim made by you that Goldstone withdrew the report: He didn't. An op-ed article in the Washington Post in order to stop the Zionist swarm that has effected his family does not equal to someone withdrawing a report. Withdrawing a report = withdrawing a report. Which never happened. The UN report still stands.

Let me know when you will get past the alternate universe you are desperately trying to sell and then we will talk about the other war crimes, like the illegal transfer of people onto Palestinian land.

Edited by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, marcus said:

..An op-ed article in the Washington Post in order to stop the Zionist swarm that has effected his family does not equal to someone withdrawing a report.

Let me know when you will get past the alternate universe you are desperately trying to sell and then we will talk about the other war crimes, like the illegal transfer of people onto Palestinian land.

"An op-ed article n the Washington Post in order to stop Zionist swarm that has effected his family" is actually the kind of comment that summarizes the universe you live in, one where you are so entrenched in your hatred of Jews  and Israelis you fabricate conspiracies and pretend someone making it clear he withdrew his conclusions did not.

Better still if he hasn't withdrawn his report as you suggest how did the Zionist swarms get to him? If we believe your contention he did not withdraw his findings then the Zionist swarm did not get to him and his family so which one is it?

Now speaking of alternative universes explain the difference between an op-ed, a repudiation and a withdrawal. Can you?

I love it. You seem to be the only anti Israeli left on this thread defending Goldstone.

By the way I am still waiting for you to explain how "the illegal transfer of people onto Palestinian land" is a war crime. In fact if anything there were sales and transfers of land title you disagree with. Problem is Arafat blew up the Land Titles office deliberately to hide something you can't handle, that most illegal land  transfers as you call them were by Palestinians against Palestinians.

Zionist swarms. I love it.

 

Regards

Dah Zionist Killer Bee

 

 

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2016 at 1:50 PM, Rue said:

You can pretend he didn't but its public record.

Public record = The report has not been withdrawn by Goldstone. The report has not changed.

3 hours ago, Rue said:

By the way I am still waiting for you to explain how "the illegal transfer of people onto Palestinian land" is a war crime.

You are waiting for what? Look up the rules.

Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory

ICC Statute

Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2016 at 1:38 PM, taxme said:

If it were not for the American taxpayers spending(blowing)billions of their tax dollars every year on Israel that country would not exist today. The Arabs would have wiped Israel off the map decades ago. The Jews are lucky that they own America as Shimon Peres said in the Knesset many years ago.

Israel is a giant strategic beachhead for the West in a troubled part of the world. If the U.S. or Western forces decided at some point to really do something about the humanitarian disaster that is many Arab countries, Israel is a natural staging ground. If you liked the bloodshed at Normandy you'd love what would be needed, absent Israel, to restore order to the rest of the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jbg said:

Israel is a giant strategic beachhead for the West in a troubled part of the world. If the U.S. or Western forces decided at some point to really do something about the humanitarian disaster that is many Arab countries, Israel is a natural staging ground. If you liked the bloodshed at Normandy you'd love what would be needed, absent Israel, to restore order to the rest of the region.

Was there ever order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to Marcus, your continued denial that Goldstone's repudiation of his report is not a withdrawal of its conclusions speaks for itself.

In regards to your failure to prove any war crime by an IDF soldier your attempt now to  try switch focus away from your failed rhetoric to raising  settlements on the West Bank as war crimes also speaks for itself.

In fact Marcus you are  quoting is Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, which states:

“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country…are prohibited…”

and  also goes on to state in the in the sixth paragraph:

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Just to be clear you can't provide any evidence of  IDF soldiers comitting a war crime and have changed the subject,

Cont. next post

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As stated in the previous post the script of claiming settlements by Israel on the West Bank are a war crime require you to take Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 and apply it to the settlements on the West Bank.

 

In fact Article 49 was originally drafted to specifically outlaw the Nazi practice of forcibly transporting populations into or out of occupied territories to death and work camps .  At no time has any Palestinian been forcibly transferred, to a death or work camp. If they had been just as Jews vanished across Europe and ceased to exist, there would be no Palestinians on the West Bank nor would they constitute the population size they are today on the West Bank. However in the script which reinvents Article 49 to apply to Israelis holding them to the Nazi equivalency, there’s no explanation how Palestinians have been able not only to continually grow at rates higher than Israelis but how not thousands but millions d non Palestinians since 1948 have moved to the West Bank from outside Palestine and now call themselves Palestinians.

The script also requires one to believe that that it is ONLY existence of Jewish settlements that have an impact on Palestinians’ standard of living, right to self-determination, equality, property, and freedom of movement, no other reason because if there was any other reason, the section would not apply.

In this script the civil wars between Palestinians, the theft of land between so called Palestinians, the wars between Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., the violation of human rights and torture of Palestinians by Fatah. Hamas, Hezbollah, the corpution of the PA and Hamas and their theft of land and international aid, it all magically does not exist.

Now we’ve seen on this board the international legal experts quite UN resolutions saying the settlements are illegal as well. Far be it for anyone to explain such resolutions are nothing more than political rhetoric and have no legal meaning.  In fact the one most quoted is Council Resolution 465 passed on March 1, 1980. that stated  Israeli settlements  have no "legal validity.

Now of course with this script you only quote resolutions that you think call settlements illegal. You don’t at any time point out or acknowledge Resolution 242, because if you did, you would realize as was pointed out by Eugene Rostow, the former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, that this resolution gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank until  a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved. In othewords the fiction of this script that says Israel must withdraw to unsafe borders while Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the PA, Fatah, et al remain in a state of war with them is a crock and in fact is the very reason no one to this day can take Israel to a war crimes court.

In the real world the PA and Hamas are in a state of war with Israel. Their charters call for the violent overthrow of Israel and the murder of Jews worldwide in a religious war. Abbas stands up in his assembly quite regularly leading chants of death to Israel and has made it clear his mandate is to turn Israel pre 1967 into a Muslim state to be reunified with what is no Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank in a greater  Muslim state. So this script would have you believe this state of belligerence does not exist. In the script the only obstacle to peace is that Israel insists on being Jewish. They say so openly. However the game of semantics is to use the settlements as the focus, and to argue they are the only obstacle. You are to ignore the rest.

Now let’s back up a second.  What Jews call Judea and Samaria, over thousands of years, was in fact  renamed the "West Bank" and annexed by Jordan in 1950. In the script on this board anything to do with Jewish history does not exist.  As well the fact the annexation by Jordan was only recognized by the UK and Pakistan is also ignored. What is also very interesting is that this script asks you to ignore that  wIraqis, Syrians and Jordanians, and other Arab nations  built settlements on the West Bank and illegally  barred Jews from living or buying property in the territories under Jordan’s regime. In fact you are asked to buy into a script where you must start with the assumption no Jew has a right to  own land in the Middle East but a Muslim does. The entire script rests on that one premises.  Any Jew who  bought or owns land, has committed a crime, but not just a crime, a  war crime but if a Muslim showed up in Palestine and fraudulently or belligerently confiscated land, its legal and not to be challenged.

In fact Arafat blew up the Land Titles Office on the West Bank because the fact was all the land titles held by Palestinians were illegal and chaos would have ensued if legal documents to this effect came out.

 

Cont. next post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The script that has you believe Israeli settlements are a war crime also ignores these facts: the area in on the West Bank dispute made up of critical built up settlements ins in fact 1.7% of the West Bank which is than 40 square miles.

So now let’s get to the actual obstacle preventing peace as much as the script would have you believe its Jews on three West Bank and “bad” Jews elsewhere.

In fact in August of 2005, as a gesture to all Palestinians and the world, Israel without pre-conditions an unilaterally withdrew from all settlements in Gaza and 4 settlements on the West Bank.

The exact same thing happened as when Israel withdrew from Lebanon. In the Lebanon situation, Hezbollah told the world it was only armed because Israel invaded Lebanon and once Israel left it would disarm. In fact the moment Israel left, Hezbollah attacked into Israel pre 1967 and refused to disarm illegally annexing almost half of Lebanon. Likewise in Gaza, the moment Israel left  both the PA and Hamas and 300 other terror cells immediately began attacking Israel leading to a civil war in Gaza whereby thousands of Palestinians were tortured and mutilated by Hamas and the PA accused of supporting each other and/or of being friends with Israel.

Israel is on public record withdrawing only to be attacked. To this day Hamas, Hezbollah, the PA, Fatah et al continue attacking Israel and demanding its Jews and Jews worldwide be killed. The script ignores this just as it comes on this board and floods it with false accusations of war crimes to focus way from the real world-the world in which as we speak, Palestinians live in poverty held captive by these terrorists while every penny that could be used to build a peaceful state side by side Israel is used for weapons, and tunnels

Israel tried repeatedly to work with the PA to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank. It was Arafat who told the world, his peace negotiations were a joke, and Israel and the world should have known they were false and he engaged in bad faith and the whole world should have known he was just stalling for time to get more weapons to defeat Israel.

So Marcus you can quote conventions and resolutions but there’s a reason the war crimesyou allege have never been to war crimes court-its loud so loud even the same Marcus who pretends the Goldstone repudiation is irrelevant can’t deny it-the alleged war crimes are not.

 To prove a war crime the PA, Hamas,  et al will first  have to prove they are not at war with Israel. They will have to prove they are not armed and in a state of war with Israel and  accept Israel as a Jewish state, and agree to live peacefully side by side it.

Once and only once that happene, then and only then could their war crime argument hold because only at that point would the need to remain n the West Bak for self defence would end.

Until such time despire your parallel universe where only Israel is at war and beligerent,  they are as much belligerent parties as Israel is, and when parties remain belligerent neither side contrary to what you believe has an obligation let the other side attack it.

Israel has always had under international law the right to exist and defend itself against states who are at war with it and terrorists who are at war with it. That can't be conveniently ignored when you discuss the settlements and the legal issues attached to them.

Furthermore the legal argument which assumes no individual  Jew can have title to land on the West Bank is false.

The individual right of Jews to own land on the West Bank is not to be confused with the argument of which sovereign state should govern the land which would include those Muslim Jewish and Christian  land titles.

In Muslim states, Jews under Sharia law can’t own land. This is why the PA wants all of the West Bank. It's to seize not just land legally acquired by Jews and Christians legally and since Biblical days. The PA et al refuse to recognize any non Muslim right to land title anywhere in the Middle East, That violates fundamental basic human right even the UN can't ignore when examining the land titles issues.

 

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people want to sell their alternate universe, like that a report has been withdrawn, when it has not been.

They also go on to try to sell their alternate universe that Israel is not transferring people onto the land it has illegally annexed from another group of people and that it's all legal and honky dory, because, well, Israel is doing it, so it must be. Then we are blessed with paragraphs after paragraphs that lets us know how it's ALL OKAY MAN!

I can go through 10 pages repeating the reality of the situation like I did previously repeating that a report that was never withdrawn was never withdrawn, or I can just quote Canada's official policy on:

Occupied Territories and Settlements

Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2016‎-‎10‎-‎16 at 10:06 PM, marcus said:
On ‎2016‎-‎10‎-‎18 at 3:24 AM, marcus said:

Some people want to sell their alternate universe, like that a report has been withdrawn, when it has not been.

They also go on to try to sell their alternate universe that Israel is not transferring people onto the land it has illegally annexed from another group of people and that it's all legal and honky dory, because, well, Israel is doing it, so it must be. Then we are blessed with paragraphs after paragraphs that lets us know how it's ALL OKAY MAN!

I can go through 10 pages repeating the reality of the situation like I did previously repeating that a report that was never withdrawn was never withdrawn, or I can just quote Canada's official policy on:

Occupied Territories and Settlements

Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You were shown how Goldstone repudiated his report and in fact stated publically he retracted his earlier findings. For you to pretend he did not repudiate his report because t he UN has not withdrawn it does not mean he did not repudiate it. The only alternative universe is the one you live in trying o pretend he did not withdraw his words because the UN which can not rely on the report legally in a court of law for political reasons won't withdraw it but can't use it either.

But hey I suppose if you hide behind some absurd semantic exercise o f what withdrawal means it makes you think he did not withdraw his report. Let's just say some people do get confuse as to what the word withdrawal means. You might want to consider Planned Parenthood helping you out with the concept.

That said, hey now, how do the words you quote provide legal evidence of a war crime? You even read what you reproduce? Lol of course not.

As well, why did you forget these words from the same document you quoted hmmm?

" Support for Israel and its Security

Canada supports Israel's right to live in peace with its neighbours within secure boundaries and recognizes Israel's right to assure its own security, as witnessed by our support during the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah and our ongoing support for Israel's fight against terror. Israel has a right under international law to take the necessary measures, in accordance with human rights and international humanitarian law, to protect the security of its citizens from attacks by terrorist groups. Canada and Israel enjoy a steadfast friendship and strong, growing bilateral relations in many areas based on shared values, including democracy. "

Why did you also delete these words by the way after the ones you quoted:

"Canada believes that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must fully respect international human rights and humanitarian law which is key to ensuring the protection of civilians, and can contribute to the creation of a climate conducive to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement."

By the way the key to the words you quoted which never accused or stated Canada believes Israel has committed any war crime are these:

"Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip)."

Israel left the Gaza strip. It won't leave the Golan Heights. Syria is in a declared state of war against Israel and so is Lebanon. As long as those declarations of war against Israel are not withdrawn by both nations, under Resolution 242, Israel has the right to defend itself against both nations an din particular the terrorists operating out of both nations.

As for the West Bank Israel has stated it has no intention of staying permanently on the West Bank but will stay there as long as the PA and hamas are in a state of war with it.

It has offered at least 4 times to withdraw from the West Bank if the PA and other terror cells agreed to disarm, recognize its right to be a Jewish state in pre-1967 Israel and stopped attacking Israel. The PA and Hamas et al will not stand down. Their war to obliterate Israel continues, and no Israel won't withdraw to make it easier for them to attack it.

Arafat is on record as saying his peace treaties that he signed with Israel were a farse, he deliberated in bad faith and was just stalling for time. He also  reidiculed ridiculed all Israeli leaders who had negotiated with him as well as Bill Clinton stating openly they should have known he'd never stop until all of Israel was turned into a Muslimc country he controlled.

Mr. Abbas has now repeated the same thing and stood up in his Assembly over and over stating his position is to never recognize a Jewish state, and the only way to recognize Israel is if it does three things; I-take in any Muslim who claims he is Palestinian and give them land title and he has stipulated no Muslim will be subject to a Palestinian identity test of any kind; ii-Israel must become a Muslim state; iii-Jews born in Israel and who have title to land must give it up to any Muslim coming to the country claiming to be Palestinian.

This is what is on public record from Mr. Abbas, the Hezbollah, Hamas. So you can repeat the script that settlements are an obstacle to peace and pretend nothing else is going on but its a thread worn script.

Israel offered to give up 95% of its settlements on the West Bank and the PA rejected that. The PA has time and time again when given the opportunity to live peacefully side by side Israel made it clear it will never do such a thing. But hey in your universe, you just ignore anything terrorists, Hamas, the PA do. In your world you can't acknowledge Muslim terrorists and the chaos they create wherever they go killing more Muslims than they do Jews. In your universe you don't and can't acknowledge Muslim terrorism is the actual obstacle to peace and the settlements are a sub-text to when and how far that withdrawawl will be if terrorists disarm.

As for East Jerusalem, it will never again be ceded not even part of it to any Muslim nation at this time for good reason. To start with under Sharia Law, Muslim nations do not recognize any religious, historic or land rites of non Muslims in Jerusalem. Secondly when Jordan was in charge of East Jerusalem, it allowed its soldiers to defecate and urinate on Jewish holy sites and openly vandalize the sites selling pieces of the rocks and other artifacts on the sites to tourists.

The PA and Hamas have made it clear they will confiscate all religious sites and property that are not Muslim.  They do not recognize the right of Christian churches and sites as well as Jewish ones.

No one with any sanity would hand over Jerusalem to Muslims in the Middle East at this time given their open disdain for non Muslim religious rights let alone their killing of each other because they are in different sects.

There is not one Muslim leader in the Middle East who has stated they would recognize Jewish and Christian land titles or rights. Not one. In fact the one called moderate by the press, Mr. Abbas stood up in his assembly calling Jews and their sights and all the Christian land titles things he does not and will never recognize.

But hey you knew that.

Regards, and  BZZZZZZ.

Dah Zionist Killuh Bee and ah don't mean dah wife of Jay ZZZZZZeee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Rue said:

You were shown how Goldstone ...

 

You said Goldstone withdrew the report. He didn't. He could have. There is actually a process where a report can be withdrawn. But yeah, Goldstone never withdrew the report and the report continues to stand.

Next: Israel is committing war crimes by transferring its own people onto Palestinian land it continues to occupy and illegally annex.

You are against international law. I get it. You are also against the International Court of Justice ruling. I understand. That's how you roll. Canada's policy? You don't care. You're an Israeli Firster. Even Israel's best buddy, U.S. of A, despite all the pressure finds the Jewish settlements to be illegal and will not accept Jerusalem as its capital.

United States

An opinion by a legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State found the settlements contrary to international law in 1978, though no Administration has officially stated so since the Carter Administration. On April 21, 1978, Legal Adviser of the Department of StateHerbert J. Hansel issued an opinion, on request from Congress, that creating the settlements "is inconsistent with international law", and against Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[45] Hansell found that "[w]hile Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."[46][47] This opinion, "has neither been revoked or revised",[45] and remains the policy of the United States according to Hansel, The Washington Post, and the Rand Corporation's Palestinian State Study Project.[48] The Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations all publicly characterized the settlements as illegal.

But please go ahead with more paragraphs, trying to sell your alternate universe. But don't expect me to give you anything more than what the reality is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2016‎-‎10‎-‎16 at 8:22 PM, jbg said:

Israel is a giant strategic beachhead for the West in a troubled part of the world. If the U.S. or Western forces decided at some point to really do something about the humanitarian disaster that is many Arab countries, Israel is a natural staging ground. If you liked the bloodshed at Normandy you'd love what would be needed, absent Israel, to restore order to the rest of the region.

To restore order to the region is for America to get the hell out of there. Leave them be and we won't need to bring into Canada 50,000 of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 2 responses for Marcus one on Goldstone in this post, the other on Israeli settlements on the West Bank in the next post.

Marcus sorry to burst your bubble but your attempt to create a universe where you hear and consider only what you want  and define everything else as being in an alternative universe has worn itself silly.  

 

In the real world Marcus, when an author repudiates the findings of his report, as Goldstone did,  he does to admit he was wrong. That admission doesn’t go away because you ignore it or because the UNHCR repudiates them. In your world you ignore the repudiation pretending because the UNHRC ignores the repudiation. The admission of error doesn’t magically disappear because the UNHCR      says so,

 

Let’s talk further about the real world. You are quick to quote US or Canadian policy when you think its anti Israeli as you’ve done but you of course are selective as to what you quote. So for example the same US you quite unanimously had its elected representatives asked the UNHRC to reconsider the report given Goldstone’s repudiations and they ignored the US. As for Canada who you have quoted you forgot to mention they along with the European Union, South Korea and Japan, all refused to be party to the Goldstone report because they claimed the very mandate of the mission was politically bias and unfair.

 

The mandate was limited to examining IDF responses, nothing else.  Let’s put it in terms you can understand. You are accused of a crime because when your neighbour repeatedly shot at you with his gun you fought back in self defence and caused him a injury. The police say the neighbour who shot at you is a victim using self defence but you, just by virtue of you responding are guilty of a crime and the only Police don’t need to investigate, the shooter already told them you were a bad person and they don’t need any other info. The investigation report by the police is goingt o be sent to the shooter’s brother to Judge in court since he’s a criminal judge.

 

The scenario above is exactly what happened with the UNHRC. Its exactly why the countries I mentioned refused to have anything to do with the mission and report. Even more interesting is that the actual person first chosen for the Goldstone mission and report, Mary Robinson, Chairperson of the UNHRC refused to have anything to do with the exercise calling it too political.              

 

The people appointed to the mission to investigate for the Goldstone report, were pre-screened and chosen based on the criteria that they had anti Israeli sentiment. This is why from the get go these countries and Chairperson and Israel refused to have anything to do with the report.

 

Goldstone then stated that Israel’s refusal to participate meant and would be assumed to mean they were admitting guilt for their actions. He also  declared that untested heresay statements, i.e., second and third hand statements of subjective opinion did not have to be authenticated they could just be accepted verbatum as truth. Who were the sources of these statements? We now know they were hand selected by Hamas  and  could only be questioned while Hamas operatives stood next to them. Goldstone saw no concern with that.

 

Since that report and before Goldstone’s repudiation, over 500 inacurracies and out and out false conclusions have been exposed and are on public domain going page by page through the Goldstone report.   That’s what went down in the real world- a world where the above exercise can not be use din any court of law – a world where the UNHRC controlled by anti Israeli Arab states can pretend the report is just fine but a world that now realizes the report is a farse, a political exercise so tainted in bias from the get go it rendered its conclusions simply a list of subjective Hamas allegations.

 

The moment this mission said it would NOT investigate Hamas and stated the actions of Hamas were not relevant to the context and issues related to IDF responses to those Hamas actions before it started its supposed investigation, it rendered the report a farse.

 

That report did exactly what you and the other anti Israelis on this thread did. It threw out all kinds of accusations but could offer no independent third party proof to corroborate the allegations.

 

That’s why Goldstone had to repudiate the report. The more inaccuracies surfaced as independent corroborated evidence came in the more ridiculous his assumptions rendered without proof began to unravel. In your world Zionists swarmed his family and made him recant his report but not withdraw it. You see no absurdity in claiming with one breath he was forced to recant, but the same people forcing him to recant forgot to ask him to withdraw the report.

 

Further, in your world you didn’t read the report. You didn’t have to. You al ready believe Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. You already consider its very existence a crime so why would you need any proof or evidence to call Israel a criminal nation? Who you? In your world as long as your subjective political bias is agreed with, why need to establish it with facts? You can just pronounce it as truth, and if people disagree, its because they live in an alternative universe.  .

 

The problem is in the real world the false allegations in the report don’t go away because you ignore them. They don’t establish any war crime, just as your quotes have not established any war crime. Just as you tried to call IDF soldiers war criminals for their actions in fighting Hamas but have no evidence, so id the Goldstone report fail. This is why faced with no proof, ooopsy you switch the topic and now instead of acknowledging you failed to prove any war crimes against Hamas, you create a new one claiming settlements on the West Bank are a war crime, and hey let’s talk about that instead.

 

Well no Marcus. We finish with what you, Eye, Dre, Hudson Jones, Bug Guy, Kactus, eta  l have not, and that is the allegations the IDF committed war crimes fighting Hamas.

 

The fat is you all came on the board all embolded by Naomi Glover posts quoting Goldstone as the be all and end all of exposes and now when Goldstone is exposed as a farse, with the exception of you where are your comrades defending Goldstone? Who Ghost? Not him he never discussed Goldstone? Who Kactus, not him. He never mentioned Goldstone. Lol.

 

Let’s recap what  Goldstone’s investigators admitted they ignored and/or  

,

·         the fact that  the Southern Command Center of Ismail Haniyeh had been located in the Shifa Hospital in Gaza and showed how they were using patients as shields – a war crime

·         the fact Hamas used numerous mosques to hide weaponry and terrorist activity – a war crime

·         refusing to talk to Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an adviser to the UK cabinet, and a recognized expert in the field of warfare in conditions similar to that in Gaza

·         refused to consider problems of conducting military operations in civilian area

·         second-guessed decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers without ever speaking with those officers or considering whether there was more than one possible theory for their actions, i.e., that they were pursuing terrorists who hid behind civilians

·         refused to consider how, when, why, where Hama launched its thousands of rocket and mortar attacks on Israel

·         refused to consider how Hamas embedded itself within the civilian population of Gaza.

concluding before their investigation started that Hamas did not bears any responsibility for deaths and destruction in the Gaza Strip

·         refused to consider statements by top Hamas officials admitting they deliberately used civilians as shields and that they died as “martyrs” for the cause

·         concluded before the investigation started that since Israel did not participate in the investigation it could assume in the absence of evidence this meant they were untrustworthy and guity of crime without the need to prove those crimes

·         deliberately ignored the fact that Hamas  police spokesperson Islam Shahwan  and numerous Hamas police admitted to them that they were used to fight against Israel – in f act Goldstone threw out their testimony and evidence and still stated they were civilian police uninvolved in the conflict

·         engaged in misrepresentations of both facts and law, i.e.,

 

1-the Report falsely accused Israel of discriminating against its non-Jewish citizens by not providing shelters to protect Arab towns and villages in Israel from the rocket attacks-this was proven to be an out an out lie by Jewish Arab citizens – in fact all municipalities Jewish or Arab in I srael  up to seven kilometers from the fence with a budget have  shelters- municipalities located further away from the fence, which included non-Jewish villages as well as the Jewish cities of Be'er Sheva and Ashqelon, did not qualify for funding for the shelters so did not have them

 

2-the Report repeatedly misrepresented historical facts, i.e. it stated that Operation "Hot Winter" was launched by Israel in February 2008 following a rocket attack towards the city of Ashkelon that caused 'light injuries' -  in actual fact, Roni Yihye, aged 47, a student at Sapir College, was killed after sustaining massive wounds to his chest that was no light injurt; it also stated that Operation "Days of Penitence" was launched in September-October of 2004, in retaliation for the firing of rockets against the town of Sderot and Israeli settlements- it deliberately omitted that the operation was launched in response to  the deaths of Yuval Abebeh (aged 4) and Dorit (Masarat) Benisian (aged 2) of Sderot, killed by a Kassam rocket fired into Gaza while both played in the street.

 

3- falsely stated he  IDF military courts system, i.e., falsely described  that the appeals process relies on provisions which were amended in 2004 and are no longer in force .

 

4-maintains the fiction that Israel is occupying Gaza when in fact the has been a complete  withdrawal of all Israeli forces

 

5-falsely states that it can keep calling Gaza occupied because of UN Security Council Resolution 1860, however this resolution makes no such assertion. In fact, in the negotiations prior to the adoption of this resolution, a Libyan draft which sought to insist that Gaza was still occupied was specifically not adopted by the members of the Security Council.

 

 

Now of course if one takes the time to point out these inaccuracies and misrepresentations the response one gets from the anti Israelis on this board is, I won’t read that, its too long. There we have it. Its ok to come on a political debate forum and make unfounded accusations with zero evidence – that’s o .k. because one can do that in a sentence or two -but take the time to actually repudiate the allegation and presto just like the Goldstone repudiation, Marcus et al change he subject and vanish only to surface a few days later with more unfounded name calling.

 

The fact is the  report Marcus pretends is reliable like his allegations and those of the others on this thread  has failed to consider the realities of the conflict and in particular the mode of operation of terrorist organizations which deliberately endanger civilians and make urban areas their battlefield of choice engage in.

 

Arm chair experts who claim to be military and counter-terrorist experts come to this forum accusing Israel of war crimes and yet not a shred of evidence, not one piece of evidence.

 

The pathetic attempt to extricate from the failure to prove the IDF engaged in war crimes against Hamas during the last uprising now suddenly is a discussion about settlements on the West Bank only.

 

Oh how convenient.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the attempt to state Jewish settlements are a “war crime”  I refer to the article,

 

“Jewish settlements are legal” by  Yoram Ettinger  at:

http://bit.ly/2b6ZtYK, August 18, 2016

I don’t spend too much time on it because again the use of the settlement issue to focus away from any prove of war crimes speaks for itself as does the assumed bias by all antil Israelis that it’s a black and white legal conclusion that any Jewish settlement on the West bank must be illegal because they believe the UN said so:

“The misperceptions, misrepresentations and ignorance surrounding the general attitude toward the legal status of Jewish settlements in the disputed area of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), reflects the general attitude toward the unique phenomenon of the reconstruction of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.

 

“Fidelity to law is the essence of peace” opined Prof. Eugene Rostow, a former Dean of Yale University Law School, Undersecretary of State and a co-author of the November 22, 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242. Rostow resolved that under international law: “Jews have the same right to settle in the West Bank as they have in Haifa.” 

 

Prof. Rostow determined that according to Resolution 242, which he co-authored: “Israel is required to withdraw ‘from territories’, not ‘the’ territories, nor from ‘all’ the territories, but ‘some’ of the territories, which included the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Desert and the Golan Heights.”  Moreover, “resolutions calling for withdrawal from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly…. Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile and vulnerable’ [9-15 mile-wide] lines… but to ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties…. In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai… [which amounts to] more than 90% of the territories occupied in 1967….”

 

Former President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, stated: “[The 1967] Israeli conquest of territory was defensive rather than aggressive… [as] indicated by Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the amassing of [Egyptian] troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of the UN Emergency Force…[and] Jordan’s initiated hostilities against Israel…. The 1948 Arab invasion of the nascent State of Israel further demonstrated that Egypt's seizure of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan's seizure and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem, were unlawful…. Between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967 ]according to Article 52 of the UN Charter[, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the territory of what was [British Mandate] Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem…. It follows that modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful….” 

The article further lists the following international treaties that no anti Israel will acknowledge:


(I) The November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by Britain, called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people….”
 

(II) The April 24, 1920 resolution, adopted by the post-First World War San Remo Peace Conference of the Allied Powers Supreme Council, incorporated the Balfour Declaration, entrusting both sides of the Jordan River to the Mandate for Palestine: “the Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration… in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” It was one of over 20 Mandates (trusteeships) established following WW1, responsible for most boundaries in the Middle East.
 

(III) The Mandate for Palestine, ratified on July 24, 1922 by the Council of the League of Nations entrusted Britain to establish a Jewish state in the entire area west of the Jordan River, as demonstrated by article 6: “[to] encourage… close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands….” The Mandate is dedicated exclusively to Jewish national rights.
 

(IV) The October 24, 1945 Article 80 of the UN Charter incorporated the Mandate for Palestine into the UN Charter.  Accordingly, the UN or any other entity cannot transfer Jewish rights in Palestine, including immigration and settlement, to any other party.


(v) The November 29, 1947 UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 was a non-binding recommendation – as are all General Assembly resolutions - superseded by the binding Mandate for Palestine. The 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and its neighbors delineated the pre-1967 ceasefire – non-ratified - boundaries. 


(vi) According to Article 80 of the UN Charter, and the Mandate for Palestine, the 1967 war of self-defense returned Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to its legal owner, the Jewish state.  Legally and geo-strategically the rules of “belligerent occupation” do not apply to Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria, since the area is not “foreign territory,” and Jordan did not have a legitimate title over the area in 1967. Also, the rules of “belligerent occupation” do not apply in view of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty.  “
 

In direct response to Marcus quoting  the convention of forced transfer of populations:


“While the 1949 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the forced transfer of populations to areas previously occupied by a legitimate sovereign power, Israel has not forced Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria, and Jordan was not recognized, internationally, as its legitimate sovereign power.


Furthermore, the 1993 Oslo Accord and the 1995 Israel-Palestinian Authority Interim Agreement do not prohibit Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, stipulating that the issue will be negotiated during the permanent status negotiations, enabling each party to plan, zone and build in areas under its control. If Israeli construction prejudges negotiation, then Arab construction – which is dramatically larger – dramatically prejudges negotiation.”  


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rue said:

In regards to the attempt to state Jewish settlements are a “war crime”  I refer to the article,

 

“Jewish settlements are legal” by  Yoram Ettinger  at: 

Yeah. That's great. Post an article from Yoram Ettinger from Jewish National Fund whose objective is:  The JNF charter specifies reclamation of land for the Jewish people as its primary purpose. "The JNF stipulates that only Jews can buy, mortgage or lease JNF land." Another one of many racist Jewish groups.

I don't care for opinion pieces from shills like Yoram Ettinger whose sole purpose is to push the alternate universe instead of accepting reality. So you go ahead and post opinion pieces from racist groups. I am more interested in the reality that the whole world, except for Israel accepts, which is that the Jewish Settlements on Palestinian land are illegal and that transferring these people into the illegal settlements are a violation of international law and a war crime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2016 at 0:59 PM, marcus said:

Yeah. That's great. Post an article from Yoram Ettinger from Jewish National Fund whose objective is:  The JNF charter specifies reclamation of land for the Jewish people as its primary purpose. "The JNF stipulates that only Jews can buy, mortgage or lease JNF land." Another one of many racist Jewish groups.

I don't care for opinion pieces from shills like Yoram Ettinger whose sole purpose is to push the alternate universe instead of accepting reality. So you go ahead and post opinion pieces from racist groups. I am more interested in the reality that the whole world, except for Israel accepts, which is that the Jewish Settlements on Palestinian land are illegal and that transferring these people into the illegal settlements are a violation of international law and a war crime.

 

Lol.

You haven't a clue how to respond to Goldstone's flaws and errors. Not a clue. You haven't a clue how to debate let alone disuss the legal issues associated with the land titles issue, not a clue so you try deflect with name calling..

I would expect nothing else from you but petulant name calling and attempts to run away from what you started and can't finish.

Now let's deal with you calling Ettinger  shrill and the JNF racist.

You stated the JNF stipulates only Jews can buy, mortgage or lease JNF land. You fabricated that. Its false. Go on back it up. Prove it.

You went to Wikepedia and cherry picked. The same article you rely on to make the above statement also stated:

"On 26 January 2005, Israel's Attorney General Menachem Mazuz ruled that lease restrictions violated Israeli anti-discrimination laws, and that the ILA could not discriminate against Arab citizens of Israel in the marketing and allocation of the lands it managed; this applied both to government lands and to lands belonging to the JNF. However, the Attorney General also decided that, whenever a non-Jewish citizen wins an ILA tender for a plot of JNF-owned land, the ILA would compensate the JNF with an equal amount of land. This would allow the JNF to maintain its current hold over 2,500,000 dunams (2,500 km2) of land, or 13% of the total land in Israel."

In July 2007, the Israeli Knesset approved the Jewish National Fund Bill, submitted by MK Uri Ariel (National Union/National Religious Party), in its preliminary reading; but the bill was later dropped. The bill sought to authorize the JNF practice of refusing to lease land to Arab citizens.[65] The bill called for a new provision to the 1960 Israel Land Administration Law, entitled "Management of the Jewish National Fund's Lands"; the provision stated that regardless of other conflicting rulings, leasing JNF lands for Jewish settlement did not constitute discrimination, and: "For the purpose of every law, the association documents of the Jewish National Fund will be interpreted according to the judgment of the Jewish National Fund's founders and from a nationalist-Zionist standpoint."[66].....

In September 2007, the High Court heard a further Adalah petition seeking cancellation of an ILA policy as well as Article 27 of the Regulations of the Obligations of Tenders, which in concert prevent Arab citizens from participating in bids for JNF-controlled land.[67] The High Court of Justice agreed to delay a ruling by at least four months, and a temporary settlement was reached (following the compromise proposed in 2005 by Menachem Mazuz) wherein, although the JNF would be prevented from discriminating on grounds of ethnicity, nevertheless every time land is sold to a non-Jew, the ILA would compensate it with an equivalent amount of land, thus ensuring the total amount of land owned by Jewish Israelis remains the same.[4]

It is true at one point the JNF purchased land land for Jews. They did so in direct response to Jews not being allowed to own land in Muslim and Christian countries. Yah of course, you skip that part. You also skip that today's laws in Israel don't allow the discrimination you claim precisely because this ZIONIST nation guarantees Muslims the same legal rights as Jews in Israel, the very rights no Jew is allowed in a Muslim country because of Sharia law. In the Jewish state of Israel, non Jews can and do own land. In sharia law Muslim nations of the Middle East no Jew can own land. Yah I know Marcus you skip that.

 It is precisely because of ZIONIST laws, and the fundamental principle of Zionism created to guarantee land for Jews to flee to that also protects non Jews in this Jewish country.

What you Marcus won't acknowledge is the Israeli government and its legal system protect and guarantee the right of non Jews to own land in Israel. Of course you can't and won't. 

You also show how lacking in credibility and how two faced your positions is because you support sharia law in Muslim countries that prohibit Jews from owning land yet you only seem to find discrimination to own land unacceptable when it in your opinion it prevents Muslims from owning land.  How convenient. How credible. How convenient and credible you ignore the Charter of Hamas  and the Charter of the PA and the laws of all Arab league nations that state no Jew can own land in a Muslim country and only seem to get outraged if you think a Jew owns land.

How convenient you  cherry pick and try accuse the JNF of discrimination when you support discrimination. What a joke. What a transparent attempt to deflect from being unable to defend Goldstone or the legal issues associated with the settlements on the West Bank.

Guess what the manouver of trying to extricate yourself from the two issues you started but can't finish speaks for itself.

Just for the record, the JNF came into effect in 1901 to buy unowned land for Jews fleeing Europe and the tyranny of Shia Muslim law  them from owning land in Arab countries. That is why it bought land for Jews. It bought land for them because they came from countries who did not seperate religion (Islam, Christianity) from the state and so had religious laws their governments enforced prohibiting Jews from owning land. The JNF was created to fight against discrimination against Jews from owning land by buying land for them.

Since 1948, the JNF funded  reforestation, water reclamation, and environmental education projects that benefit all Israelis not just Jewish ones.

However its mandate had to change and it did.

Yes JNF land was purchased for Jewish settlement with money from Jewish people throughout the world.

Its estimatyed  about a third of JNF land was bought before Israel’s founding in 1948.

The remaining two-thirds was transferred or sold to the JNF by the Israeli government, often at reduced prices, much of it from unclaimed or abandoned Arab land after Israel's creation and that has caused legal issues as to discrimination against non Jewish Israelis.

Under Israeli law, once Israel became a Jewish state, JNF holdings became property of all citizens of Israel including non Jewish Israelis.

That is what the law says and that is what's been enforced.

Land ownership in Israel is a right of all citizens not just Jewish ones. The same can't be said of Jews or other non Muslims in the sharia law system Marcus supports and wants for all of the Middle East which in his world would only allow Muslims to own land.

 

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Rue said:

Lol.

You haven't a clue

Just to be clear:

- Goldstone has never withdrawn his report (even though he has the ability to do so). The report still stands.
- Israel violates international law, as agreed by Canada, U.S.A and the rest of the world (except for Israel) by transferring its people onto Palestinian land

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, marcus said:

Just to be clear:

- Goldstone has never withdrawn his report (even though he has the ability to do so). The report still stands.
- Israel violates international law, as agreed by Canada, U.S.A and the rest of the world (except for Israel) by transferring its people onto Palestinian land

Just to be clear;

-you haven't proven Israel has committed any war crimes, and in fact when you could not you switched the topic to the legality of Israeli settlements on the West Bank to try evade your failure

-you still haven't explained how Goldstone's admitting that his own report was wrong did not render the report meaningless and therefore make any formal withdrawal unnecessary.

-you demnstrate a complete lack of credibility in being quick to quote on the Canada and the US positions over the settlement issue, but ignore their positions  in regards to the Goldstone.

-when I provided an opinion as to the legality of settlements on the West Bank other than the one you argue,  you did not address he issues raised but instead avoided debate and engaged in your repetitive memo of  calling  the author of the position you disagree with names and then tried to switch the topic yet again to disparage  the Jewish National Fund.

Hard as you try to evade your inability to prove war crimes were committed by the IDF or the Goldstone Report was rendered meaningless because of its own author's repudiation of its central findings, you now in regards to the settlements on the West Bank ignore the fact there are arguments other than the ones you embrace or think the UN, Canada or the US does.

This site for example provides examples of arguments other than the ones you will only consider:

http://theisraelisettlements.blogspot.ca/p/settlements-legal-issues.html

The above site provides a legal version of:

" The Levy Commission to Examine the Status of Building on Judea and Somaria "

It also provides links to these articles and positions:
A UN Resolution to Recognize a Palestinian State within the "1967 Borders" Would Be Illegal
A letter drafted by lawyers of the Legal Forum for Israel to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon
JCPA, May 2011

Quand l'occupant n'est pas celui que l'on veut bien croire...
Article in French about the above letter includes an interview with Prof. Eliav Shohatman on the Land of Israel's international law status
HaModia (French Edition), May 29, 2011

The Illegal-Settlements Myth
by David M. Phillips
Commentary, December 2009


Israeli settlements are more than legitimate 
In fact, the 1922 Mandate for Palestine encourages them.
By Eric Rozenman
LA Times, December 11, 2009

Preserving a legal inheritance: settlement rights in the "Occupied Palestinian Territories"
By Gerald M Adler
Law Society of Scotland, September 14, 2009

The International Law and The Arab-Israel Conflict
Extracts from "Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations"
By Julius Stone
Editor: Ian Lacey
2003

International Law Regarding The Land of Israel and Jerusalem
More on the San Remo Conference
by Elliott A. Green
Midstream, February/March, 1999

San Remo's Mandate: Israel's 'Magna Carta'
The 1920 San Remo resolution answered a fundamental issue that still plagues the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks today: whether Israel has a right to the land.

Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue
Settlements are not illegal, and have neither the size, population, nor placement to deserve the attention they receive
By Jeffrey Helmreich
Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, January 19, 2003

Articles By Eugene Rostow:
o "Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity"
o "Are the settlements legal? Resolved"
from Countering Bias and Misinformation mainly about the Arab-Israel conflict
by Maurice Ostroff

Inappropriate Use of the Fourth Geneva Convention
Did Israel really use "deportation" and "forced transfer" of its own population into "occupied territories"?
By Eli. E. Hertz
Myths and Facts, February 3, 2010

World Leaders Ignore International Law
Rewriting history by using loaded language such as 'Occupied Territories,' the Settlements as an 'Obstacle to Peace' and 'Not Legitimate'
Eli. E. Hertz
Myths and Facts, September 21, 2009

What the above shows Marcus is that:

1-your tactic to try insult the author of a legal position you don't like does not render the position "incorrect" or lacking in legitimacy;

2-that the universe you live in deliberately selects only things it agrees with and excludes anything else;

3-that there is another legal position other than the one you parrot.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a summary of legal arguments about settlements on the West Bank other than the one that all settlements by Jews on the West Bank are illegal based on the references I gave in the previous post and can be found as well at : http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id162.html

1-the League of Nations' 1922 British Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, encouraged "close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public use." Most Israeli settlements in the West Bank were built on land that was state land under the Ottomans, British, Jordanians and, after the 1967 Six-Day War, under the Israelis, or on property that has been privately purchased; (also see: http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2.htm )

pixel.gif

2-the United States endorsed Article 6 by signing the 1924 Anglo-American Convention, a treaty stipulating acceptance of the mandate. While The League of Nations is long gone, but Article 6 remains in force because the  United Nations' 1945 Charter, Article 80, states  that "nothing in the charter shall be construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.";

3a-Eugene Rostow, U.S. undersecretary of State for President Lyndon Johnson -- who is an authority on international law and the coauthor of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which outlines requirements for Arab-Israeli peace -- reaffirmed this principle. In 1990, he said: "The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem before the state of Israel was created." According to Rostow in 1991, the resolution makes it clear that it did not mandate Israeli withdrawal from all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai peninsula to the post-1948 armistice lines;

3b-Both Resolution 242 and 338 state that an occupant such as Israel is entitled to remain in control of a territory involved in a dispute pending negotiation of a treaty of peace-Israel had one that the PA signed but then the PA ripped it up so it no longer applies; the PA is in  declared state of war with Israel; precisely because of the on-going state of war, openly proclaimed by Mr. Abbas, and currently taking place daily as Palestinians randomly attack Israeli citizens and Hamas reconstructs tunnels to again be able to attack Israel from Gaza, Israel's right to navally blockade Gaza and remain in the West Bank   pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence- in fact  the same international law  Marcus quotes as forbidding  acquisition by unlawful force is predicated on the false fiction that Israel did not enter the West bank legally for self-defence in 1967-there is no international law that prohibits the IDF from being on the West Bank as long as terrorists and its self appointed government wage a war of terror against Israel-this is why Marcus must focus on settlements and not the presence of the IDF and this is why the quotes he provides makes no reference to IDF presence just civilian settlements;

3c-Marcus et al will be quick to refer to the international courts saying Israeli settlements are illegal but ignores the following; the same  International Court of Justice, he quoted never adjudicated any territorial dispute on the West Bank-no case has ever been brought-what it did was comment on how it might decide in the future if called upon to adjudicate-it hasn't yet adjudicated -that is a huge distinction because  when actually called upon to adjudicate in territorial disputes and  not just make a reference as it did with the West Bank  for instance in the Minquires and Echrehos case between the United Kingdom and France, proceeded "to appraise the relative strength of the opposing claims to sovereignty". It showed in its deliberation  that when considering disputes, a title to territory will be considered  based on a claim not of absolute but only of relative validity- and so for example it might decide one way on the West Bank outside East Jerusalem but to assume it will automatically give East Jerusalem to the PA is just that since no  other state let alone the PA has a legal claim equal to that of Israel under the unconditional cease-fire agreement of 1967 and the rule of uti possidetis; (actual possession) and note since Israel has voliuntarilyu agreed to recognize the private land title rights of Christian churches in East Jerusalem, that would not be in dispute-it is only the PA that does not recognize the right of non Muslims to any land anywhere in the Middle East including East Jerusalem which is by itself a violation of international law;

4-the allegation that Jewish communities in the West Bank violate the  4th Geneva Convention, Article 49 which states,   that an occupying power "shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."  its not correct; Julius Stone, a leading legal theorist, wrote in his 1981 book, "Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations," that the above argument falsely designates Israeli settlements as illegal in fact subverts   basic international law principle, as the article was intended to apply to the deportations of Jews across Europe the Nazis instituted not the situation on the West Bank; Stone and  Stephen Schwebel, a former judge on the International Court of Justice, and other lawyers  have shown there is a distinction or difference  between territory acquired by  Nazi Germany's seizures during World War II and  the territory taken in self-defense  in 1967 on the West Bank by Israel; this difference from the Nazi conquests is made even more distinct by the fact that  the territory acquired by Israel unlike territory acquired by Nazi Germany, was never part of a sovereign land and in fact has always been disputed land that from 1948 to 1967 was held illegally by Jordan.  Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention was intended to outlaw the Nazi practice of forcibly transporting populations into or out of occupied territories to labor or death camps. Israel to date has never forcibly transferred any Jewish or non Jewish Israel to the West Bank.  There is to date, no legal proof  "Palestinians" i.e., non Jews living in the West Bank and not Israeli citizens were forced out of the West Bank. If they were, there would be no non Jewish individuals on the West Bank.

5-2 years after President Carter's State Department determined that Israeli settlements violated international law, President Reagan said  they were "not illegal." Reagan a did and Obama have both stated  that Israel's establishing towns in the disputed territories after 1967 , obstructs diplomacy, or, as I argue or  Israeli critics do arue, that building Jewish communities near Palestinian Arab population centers disperses the country's Jewish majority too widely but this does not mean the settlements are automatically illegal simply because they exist;

6-Article 75 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, declares that the provisions of the Convention governing the validity of treaties are "are without prejudice to any obligation…which may arise for an aggressor State" (Hamas, PA)in consequence of measures taken by the victim of the aggression (Israel) in lawful self-defence; no international law says an existing state must retreat and expose itself to borders that would assist its enemy wipe it out;

7-the notion that Israel should withdraw unilaterally from the whole of the Territories, without any peace agreement with Hamas and he PA and while they remain armed and dedicated to continuing a war of terror to wipe it out do not exist in international law and can not be separated from the issue of settlements as the two are inextricably linked -settlements  guarantee security by providing earlier warnings of incoming attacks-if the settlements are to be removed as part of a comprehensive peace plan (which I am in favour of) that can not come about without terrorists first agreeing to disarm and their organizations agreeing to stop engaging in terror and recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the pre 1967 borders; to date the Arab League, Hamas, PA et al refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and refuse to relinquish their current declared state of war which calls to take back all of the Jewish state and kill Jews world wide as part of a Muslim religious global war against Jews-this fiction that one simply calls Israeli settlements illegal and not look to its inextricable attachment to the greater issue of secure borders is fiction-deliberate selective fiction to try  negate the whole basis for the negotiation of a peaceful settlement with "secure and recognized boundaries" as contemplated by UNSC Resolution 242.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rue, I am not interested in debating whether the settlements are legal or not. I am happy with what the ICJ has concluded and what the whole world accepts, including Canada and U.S. It doesn't matter how many articles you post by shills, the settlements are illegal. Israel's transfer of its people into the West Bank and East Jerusalem is a violation of international law and a war crime.

Goldstone? You're still trying to defend the misinformation that he withdrew his report? The fact that the report is not withdrawn and that it still stands in the UN kind of ruins that.

By the way, the JNF is another example of Israel's discrimination against non-Jews. Despite the song and dance and the theater that is usually put on by Zionists to force an alternate universe onto people, it's well known how difficult it is for Palestinians to purchase land and receive permits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...