Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aqeel1101)
    And to you Vienna...even Binyamin Ben Elieezer agrees theyre illegal....UN says the settlements are illegal...please do not BS......technical terms may fool some and cause them to shy away from debate...just stick to fact and try not to apply 'back street lawyer' tactics that never work....

    " I am definitely at a point where I am going to deal with the issue of the illegal outposts..."

    Binyamin Ben Eliezer (26th June 2002, Israeli Defence Minister)
    Illegal outposts = all Jewish settlements are illegal? or 'outposts that have not had legal authorisation from the Israeli Supreme Court'?

    Get your facts straight before you start interpreting them as you so wish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Illegal outposts = all Jewish settlements are illegal? or 'outposts that have not had legal authorisation from the Israeli Supreme Court'?

    Get your facts straight before you start interpreting them as you so wish
    no what he is saying is that the entire world views israels occupation as illegal !! he has his facts right !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    In regard to the occupations of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, they have both been deemed as illegal in UN resolutions 267 and 497.
    Where has Israeli or Jewish presence been deemed illegal?

    Also resolutions 446 452 465 and 471 describe all Israeli settlements as illegal. And as of 12:00 Israeli times last night, all settlements in Gaza became illegal under Israeli law.
    Lets take 446...

    In 1979, thus before significant parts of the West Bank and Gaza were handed over to PLO jurisdiction, the UN calls on Israel to

    "abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories"

    Now none of that determines voluntary Jewish settlement to be illegal.

    Such a resolution also highlights how characteristically one sided the UN is on these matters: " the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967"

    The UN now declares some parts of Palestine to be an Arab territory, that Israel has 'occupied' since the Six Day war. Interesting that the UN does not mention the fact that the territory was under no other legitimate sovereign control prior to Israels defensive measure, and that Jordan illegally occupied the land prior to that. Whatsmore, like UNSCR 242 it intentionally makes no specific mention of which territory is being occupied, primarily because the UN cannot go back on its declaration that the 1968 borders are merely Armistice lines that do not represent borders of sovereign control.

    So Israel is free to allow Jewish settlement in Palestine under the premise that such settlement does not 'materially' affect the existing populations.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Lets take 446...

    In 1979, thus before significant parts of the West Bank and Gaza were handed over to PLO jurisdiction, the UN calls on Israel to

    "abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories"

    Now none of that determines voluntary Jewish settlement to be illegal.
    Whether voluntary or not, this resolution specifically outlaws any transfer of population. The building of settlements for Israeli ownership clearly consititutes a transfer of civilian population, and since "occupied" is spelt with a small "o", I think that constitutes a contravention of Geneva IV and of UNSCR 446.

    The UN now declares some parts of Palestine to be an Arab territory, that Israel has 'occupied' since the Six Day war. Interesting that the UN does not mention the fact that the territory was under no other legitimate sovereign control prior to Israels defensive measure, and that Jordan illegally occupied the land prior to that. Whatsmore, like UNSCR 242 it intentionally makes no specific mention of which territory is being occupied, primarily because the UN cannot go back on its declaration that the 1968 borders are merely Armistice lines that do not represent borders of sovereign control.
    True.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    IS this why you call the UN anti-semetic vienna because it doesnt allow you israel to take other peoples territory ! what israel has done is illegal !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    Whether voluntary or not, this resolution specifically outlaws any transfer of population. The building of settlements for Israeli ownership clearly consititutes a transfer of civilian population, and since "occupied" is spelt with a small "o", I think that constitutes a contravention of Geneva IV and of UNSCR 446.
    The intepretation of 'transfer' is clearly different, so understanding the basis for its existence in the Fourth Geneva Convention, as a result of the Nazi occupation, suggests to me that 'transfer' implies an active policy of forcibly moving a population under your jurisdiction from land under your sovereign control to land (now uner sovereign control) that was previously under the sovereign control of another power(ie. occupied). None of this can be implied in the case of Israel and Jewish settlers. Its certainly not the basis for the UN to go back on the rights the League of Nations afforded Jewish settlers in the Mandate for Palestine as protected by the UN Charter.

    Is the British government guilty of transferring you to Bordeaux? Or did they allow you to exercise your right of passage?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    The intepretation of 'transfer' is clearly different, so understanding the basis for its existence in the Fourth Geneva Convention, as a result of the Nazi occupation, suggests to me that 'transfer' implies an active policy of forcibly moving a population under your jurisdiction from land under your sovereign control to land (now uner sovereign control) that was previously under the sovereign control of another power(ie. occupied). None of this can be implied in the case of Israel and Jewish settlers. Its certainly not the basis for the UN to go back on the rights the League of Nations afforded Jewish settlers in the Mandate for Palestine as protected by the UN Charter.

    Is the British government guilty of transferring you to Bordeaux? Or did they allow you to exercise your right of passage?
    To be fair the British Government has not built a settlement in Bordeaux, has it? so you can't compare those two situations at all. Your interpretation obviously doesn't agree with the UN's interpretation of 'transfer', they make the decisions and not you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    The intepretation of 'transfer' is clearly different, so understanding the basis for its existence in the Fourth Geneva Convention, as a result of the Nazi occupation, suggests to me that 'transfer' implies an active policy of forcibly moving a population under your jurisdiction from land under your sovereign control to land (now uner sovereign control) that was previously under the sovereign control of another power(ie. occupied). None of this can be implied in the case of Israel and Jewish settlers. Its certainly not the basis for the UN to go back on the rights the League of Nations afforded Jewish settlers in the Mandate for Palestine as protected by the UN Charter.
    I can understand how you see it, and acknowledge that a grey area exists over the term transfer.
    Is the British government guilty of transferring you to Bordeaux? Or did they allow you to exercise your right of passage?
    Well they certainly didn't build cheap housing as an incentive for me to go there. In my interpretation a voluntary transfer could be just as illegal as an involuntary one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    Well they certainly didn't build cheap housing as an incentive for me to go there. In my interpretation a voluntary transfer could be just as illegal as an involuntary one.
    Just a rather cynical attempt to undermine your argument by attacking your personal position, by drawing very flawed parallels. Vienna complains about this sort of thing happening to her, so I'm glad to see she isn't resorting to it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    chemist boy carl supports israels illegal occupation so he is going to try and justify it in anyway.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bashment)
    chemist boy carl supports israels illegal occupation so he is going to try and justify it in anyway.
    Ummmmmm no I don't
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ummmmmm no I don't
    well it sounds like you do !
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bashment)
    well it sounds like you do !
    Read the last page and see if I'm justifying illegal settlement!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't care, I just spotted Vienna saying something stupid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    don't care, I just spotted Vienna saying something stupid
    read my sig buddy she is says its OK to ignore the international court of justice i think she is a zionist ??!!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bashment)
    read my sig buddy she is says its OK to ignore the international court of justice i think she is a zionist ??!!
    AND?!? I'm a Zionist but I don't support the building of illegal settlements. Being a Zionist has little to do with Gaza or the settlements.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    AND?!? I'm a Zionist but I don't support the building of illegal settlements. Being a Zionist has little to do with Gaza or the settlements.
    yes but they obviously play a major part in it, this is another thing i dont understand why are there still zionists ?? you have your homeland !! be happy with it and live happily
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bashment)
    yes but they obviously play a major part in it, this is another thing i dont understand why are there still zionists ?? you have your homeland !! be happy with it and live happily
    To be a Zionist is to support the existence of a homeland for the Jews. If you're not a Zionist you support the destruction of Israel. Do you support the destruction of Israel?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be a Zionist is to support the existence of a homeland for the Jews. If you're not a Zionist you support the destruction of Israel. Do you support the destruction of Israel?
    is your last name bush by any chance??
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bashment)
    is your last name bush by any chance??
    ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 8, 2005
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.