Israel approves 1,100 settler homes in Gilo, Jerusalem

[xchrom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15080160

Israel has approved the construction of 1,100 homes in the Jewish settlement of Gilo on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

The move comes days after Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas called for full UN membership for a Palestinian state.

The US has repeatedly urged Israel to stop building settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

Almost 500,000 Jews live in settlements on occupied territory. The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. What would happen to the settlements built on territory that becomes

recognized as a sovereign state of Palestine? Are the property owners reimbursed like eminent domain or are they given an option to remain as residents but of a new country?

[holdencaufield]

2. I have every confidence...

... that the PA will embrace their Jewish citizens and form a multicultural society based on mutual respect for diversity.

[maxsolomon]

3. What happened in Gaza?

Israel tore every settlement down rather than leave the buildings to the Palestinians.

I imagine that the current government and the settlers believe that in any peace agreement, Palestine will cede these settlements to Israel. Hence the wall - facts on the ground.

[Swede]

21. The houses were demolished by mutual agreement.

06-20) 04:00 PST Jerusalem — 2005-06-20 04:00:00 PST Jerusalem -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed that hundreds of Jewish homes in the Gaza Strip will be demolished when Israel evacuates settlers this summer.

Rice's announcement appeared to settle a debate over what to do with the houses after Israel abandons 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza and four others in the northern West Bank. Some Israelis, including Vice Premier Shimon Peres, advocated handing over the homes to Palestinians. But Palestinians officials say leaving the single-family dwellings intact wouldn't ease a housing shortage in Gaza, one of the most cramped places on Earth.



http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-06-20/news/17379136_1_israel-evacuates-settlers-settlers-homes-hundreds-of-jewish-homes

[Jefferson23]

4. Tick tock, tick tock..the rat ran up the clock and kept securing land

with no preconditions to stop it.

[Scurrilous]

5. U.S. condemns Israeli plan for new construction beyond Green Line

EU, Palestinians also denounce Israel's plan for 1,100 new homes in Jerusalem's contested Gilo neighborhood

<snip>

"The U.S. condemned Tuesday Israel's plan to build 1,100 new housing units in Jerusalem's contested Gilo neighborhood, which lies beyond the Green Line.

"These kinds of actions are counterproductive to the resumption of direct negotiations," a State Department official said.

"Our position has not changed: Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel’s future itself," the U.S. official said.

The European Union's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton also expressed disappointment with Israel's new plan to build homes in Gilo, saying they "should be reversed" since it undermines peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Ashton told the EU parliament that she heard "with deep regret" that Israeli plans to build homes beyond the Green Line were continuing.

Speaking in Strasbourg, France, Ashton said the expansion of settlements "threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution" between the two sides, as backed by the EU, the United States, Russia and the United Nations."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-condemns-israeli-plan-for-new-construction-beyond-green-line-1.387055

[mazzarro]

6. This is the same old song and dance all over again

Israel and her partners know what they are doing - they will eventually annex the whole of West Bank and Gaza. I suspect the game is to keep this song/dance going until the Palestinians become completely discouraged and frustrated so that they will have to give up and accept their faith as is - live out the rest of their lives as scattered people. I do not think the Palestinians are going to get their wish for a state/country of their own; neither will they be allowed to be part of Israel. I think they have been sold out by everyone including their own Arab brethren. And for them to survive as a people in the present world is somewhat out of the question. The Western world will never accept to help them at the expense of Israel. And the UN cannot do anything about it - period! And that is the SHAME we have to live with.

[azurnoir]

7. So you beleive the Palestinians should be resettled in Arab countries? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. How about, who are the Palestinians?

[azurnoir]

9. well why don't you 'splain that one to us Prof n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Still looking for an answer to that one...

Arafat and others have said they speak for them, but they all have refused to define them.

[Ken Burch]

30. Strawman. Coming up with a definition is a waste of time.

And we can assume that Bibi would reject any definition the PA ever offered.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. Actually it is one of several key issues

Especially since Abbas would do the same with one offered by Israel

However without such basics agreed upon, little else is possible.

I do note the recent statements that said Palestine would not allow any Jews....

[TomClash]

65. And then one could ask who are the Jews?

Is that really the road the Eretz Israel faction wants to travel? I think not.

[mazzarro]

17. No - All I'm saying is that Palestinians are getting a raw deal

And the world will not raise a finger to right this wrong because the US is biased to the nth-degree on this issue. The rest of the world is helpless and stupid to be going along with this charade - IMO.

[Shaktimaan]

47. the WHOLE of wb and gaza, huh?

And this belief of yours is based on what?

After all, Israel has been turning land over to the PA for years now but not building any additional settlements themselves. So the net result is that Israel has been losing land. I really want to know what is behind your thinking here. For instance, Israel pulled all of its settlers out of Gaza and turned it over to the Palestinians in 2005. And now they build 1,100 homes in an existing settlement (that everyone already expects to become part of Israel), requisitioning no new land for it. And this leads you to believe that Israel is planning on taking over ALL of Gaza and the WB too.

Help me out here, I'm lost. What makes you think Israel is going to annex Gaza?

IYO are they also going to annex the Sinai?

[bemildred]

10. Don't forget it's "unilateral" too, "unilaterally approves 1,100 settler homes in Gilo, Jerusalem."

"Israel has unilaterally approved the construction of 1,100 homes in the Jewish settlement of Gilo on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

The move comes days after Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas unilaterally called for full UN membership for a Palestinian state.

The US has repeatedly urged Israel to stop unilaterally building settlements on unilaterally occupied Palestinian land.

Almost 500,000 Jews live in settlements on unilaterally occupied territory. The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel unilaterally disputes this.

[vminfla]

11. Zoning laws

hmmm, I am surprised that this thread has so many posts. After all, this is nothing more than the zoning commission granting a few permits. We never see this much zoning commission interest in my neighborhood. Were there a lot of swimming pools involved?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Are their zoning laws in J'lem? From what I have seen the building codes are certainly not enforced

[vminfla]

20. Did you see some buildings that were not up to code?

Granted, if you look hard enough you can find bad electrical wiring or not enough insulation even in the best of neighborhoods. But, have you seen some permits that were granted after a material defect was discovered?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. I am sorry if my sarcasm was not obvious enough

And yes there are things in the old city that would make an electrician cringe

[Jefferson23]

14. You could look at it that way if you ignore international law, but that

might have some call you a rogue nation..not a zoning law problem.

[shira]

15. There's a reason why they're disputed territories that even Abbas admitted to recently....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/harveywasserman.com/bcnews.go.com/en.wikipedia.org/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=362665&mesg_id=362693

You really believe Jews have no right at all to the Western Wall or the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem?

[Jefferson23]

16. You could read international law, the consensus, or you

could continue as you do..presuming.

[shira]

25. They're disputed territories, as Abbas recently admitted. Jordan illegally occupying the land...

...for 19 years and ethnically cleansing it of Jews doesn't make Jews living there illegal via International Law, as much as you'd love to believe it does. It wasn't illegal for Jews to settle that area prior to 1948 and there's nothing illegal about it now. Armistice lines are not borders. They were never intended to be.

[Jefferson23]

26. So this is your defense of settlement expansion..you're a genuine

rah rah for Israel..I already knew that.

on edit, I forgot the link for you.

Document - Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories: Enduring occupation. Palestinians under siege in the West Bank


http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/033/2007/en/40f33a2d-d396-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/mde150332007en.html

[shira]

28. Expansion? Within existing blocs that will undoubtedly be part of Israel?

I still don't know why you're pushing for yet another "bogus" settlement freeze. The PA didn't show up at the negotiating table last time, and yet you blame Israel.

[Jefferson23]

29. You need one of those unilateral T-Shirts and as I have said before

under international law, Israel is wrong doing..ONCE AGAIN.

The link is there for anyone interested.

[shira]

31. Too bad Abbas said the territories are disputed. Guess he missed the memo.

As for unilateral t-shirts, you should be the poster child as you're an enthusiastic supporter of unilateral Palestinian nationhood - a terror nation practicing apartheid, racism, and routine far rightwingery with no hope for anything better in sight.

[Jefferson23]

32. You think he is unaware of international law? You're funny.

Here I thought you would appreciate the T-Shirt suggestion..I believe if you buy 2 pro-settlement t-shirts
they give you 1 pro-house demolition t-shirt free.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. fyi, Abbas didn't say that and the poster is aware of that...

I'm not sure why that poster moves from one thread to another repeating the same false stuff....


Here's my reply to them when they last brought up that claim:

No, he's not claiming anything of the sort. Please read my previous posts...

1. There is no direct quote from him using the word 'disputed'. It was someone else saying he said it. Also, as he repeatedly has referred to it correctly as an occupation, and did so multiple times in the article you posted a link to, it's very, very clear that he is not claiming that the West Bank is merely 'disputed' instead of occupied the way right-wing types do. In the same article you posted a link to, he says (and this is a direct quote, not a paraphrase): “The goal is to delegitimize occupation which must end,” he explained. “The Palestinians are the only people in the world who have remained under occupation.”

'http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=362665#363155

[shira]

55. Of course, Palestinian leaders are always misquoted or misinterpreted.

It's obvious Abbas sees merit to the 'disputed' argument, otherwise there'd be no reason to address it.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Read the following very carefully before responding...

I've already said it, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

There is no direct quote from him using the word 'disputed'. It was someone else saying he said it. Also, as he repeatedly has referred to it correctly as an occupation, and did so multiple times in the article you posted a link to, it's very, very clear that he is not claiming that the West Bank is merely 'disputed' instead of occupied the way right-wing types do. In the same article you posted a link to, he says (and this is a direct quote, not a paraphrase): “The goal is to delegitimize occupation which must end,” he explained. “The Palestinians are the only people in the world who have remained under occupation.”

[Jefferson23]

57. Thanks, but I think the reason is more about anyone who may not

be aware of the specifics of the conflict etc? This way her posts are successful to her on that level.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. I'm pretty sure you might be right there n/t

[Jefferson23]

89. Considering the responses, seems that way.

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Certainly does....

btw, I admire yr patience. I wish I had even half as much patience as you do...

:hi:

[oberliner]

71. He has said it and there are direct quotes from him using the word disputed

Even quite recently, he has made the point that if the PA bid is successful at the UN, the land will not longer be disputed territories.

[shira]

72. Yep, here's Abbas admitting to disputed territory...

"If we succeed, and this is what we are working towards, then we must know that the day following the recognition of the state, the occupation will not end," Abbas said.

"But we will have obtained the world's recognition that our state is occupied and that our land is occupied and not disputed territory, as the Israeli government claims," he said.

He added that the move is not intended to isolate Israel or delegitimize its legal status. "Israel is there, no one can isolate or take away its legal status, but we need to isolate the policies of Israel. We need to put an end to the occupation and take away the legal status of the occupation."

The PA president said that recognition of statehood with pre-1967 borders is necessary for renewed negotiations with Israel. "We need to have full membership within borders in order to go to negotiations on a basis adopted by the world so that we may discuss the permanent issues of Jerusalem, borders, refugees - and our prisoners in Israeli prisons."

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=238236

Abbas knows damned well that unless Israeli troops are running the show in a sovereign UN nation, there is no occupation. The land doesn't belong to the Palestinians, at least not yet. It's disputed.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. I'm sure he has used the word 'disputed' in the past. That's not the point...

The other poster is arguing (see their posts in the thread I linked to) that Abbas claims the Occupied Territories are 'disputed' not 'occupied'. In that thread they even came up with the bizarre claim that Abbas wants to see a legal change so that legally the term used to describe the Occupied Territories as disputed rather than occupied.

That's what I have an issue with, as it's clearly not true...

Of course he would have used the word 'disputed', and the same poster has replied to this post of yrs with an excellent example of an actual quote by Abbas, which they kindly bolded for everyone. "But we will have obtained the world's recognition that our state is occupied and that our land is occupied and not disputed territory, as the Israeli government claims,". He'd obviously use the word 'disputed' in order to say that the Occupied Territories are occupied, not disputed, which is the complete opposite of the claim the other poster has made...

[King_David]

84. I thought you just told Shira to read very carefully some nonsense

That you wrote :

"There is no direct quote from him using the word 'disputed'"

Now you say "I am sure he has used the word disputed in the past"

WTF should Shira read "very carefully " ?

Some inaccurate nonsense that you wrote is what...

;)

[Violet_Crumble]

85. No, I didn't tell Shira to read some nonsense...

But thanks for giving me the opportunity to reiterate what I've said. If you read the exchange and the very recent thread I linked to where she argued the same thing, Shira is claiming that Abbas claimed the Occupied Territories are 'disputed' and not 'occupied'.

'Abbas just admitted the other day the land is disputed, not occupied...'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=362665#362693

and

'He's definitely claiming the WB is currently under dispute.He wants a legal change from disputed to occupied.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=362665&mesg_id=363081

She made that claim based on an article where there was no direct quote from Abbas saying the land is disputed rather than occupied, and she was corrected on it only to pop up again in this thread trying to argue the same thing. If their argument was that Abbas has used the word 'disputed' in the past, my reaction would be 'so what?', but in this case the argument is that Abbas has said that the land is disputed, not occupied, and want the legal standing changed to reflect that, which is a completely different and blatantly incorrect argument. And in a skilful case of shooting one's own argument in the foot, she then finishes off her argument by posting a direct quote from Abbas where he says that the Occupied Territories are occupied, not disputed:

"But we will have obtained the world's recognition that our state is occupied and that our land is occupied and not disputed territory, as the Israeli government claims,"

I hope that's cleared up any confusion you have :)

[King_David]

86. The story changes after Oberliners post. Ha Ha

That you wrote :

"There is no direct quote from him using the word 'disputed'"

Now you say "I am sure he has used the word disputed in the past"

WTF should Shira read "very carefully " ?

Some inaccurate nonsense that you wrote is what...

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

87. No, it doesn't. Let's go through the entire exchange to help you understand...

Jefferson responds to a poster who tried to make out that Occupied East Jerusalem is part of Israel by correctly pointing out that the territory is occupied.

Shira responds with 'There's a reason why they're disputed territories that even Abbas admitted to recently' and links to a post of hers in a recent thread where she says 'Abbas just admitted the other day the land is disputed, not occupied...' (If you read the replies, you'll see that she was corrected on that claim).

Shira then goes on to say 'Too bad Abbas said the territories are disputed.'

As you can see if you read the exchange, she's arguing that Abbas has said the territory is disputed, not occupied. She's not saying that Abbas has used the word 'disputed' at all regardless of the context the word is in.

I reply to Jefferson saying 'fyi, Abbas didn't say that and the poster is aware of that'. I'll clarify what it is that Abbas didn't say. He didn't say that he believes the territories are disputed and not occupied. In my post I also refer to the article that Shira posted a link to in the other thread: 'There is no direct quote from him using the word 'disputed'.' If you read the article, you'll see there is no direct quote from him saying that he thinks the territories are disputed rather than occupied. What it contained was the writer of the article claiming that's what he said, but no direct quotes from Abbas saying that.

So far the discussion has very clearly been about Shira's claim that Abbas said the territories are disputed and not occupied.

It's at this point that confusion has set in on yr part. Obie posts 'He has said it and there are direct quotes from him using the word disputed'. As what's being discussed is that Abbas has not said the territories are disputed rather than occupied, I assumed that's what Obie was referring to, but to make it clear for those who struggle to focus on what the discussion was about, pointed out that the discussion is about the claim that Abbas believes the legal status of the territories should be disputed rather than occupied, and not about whether or not Abbas has ever used the word 'disputed' at all. That would be a non-argument, as clearly he does use the word and Shira helpfully came along and contradicted her earlier claims that Abbas said the territories are disputed, not occupied, by posting a quote from Abbas: "But we will have obtained the world's recognition that our state is occupied and that our land is occupied and not disputed territory, as the Israeli government claims,"

Then you come along needing help comprehending what the discussion has been about. Ignoring the nasty tone of the post, I explained it in a way that I thought would be easy for you to understand. But to see a reply where you'd ignored what I posted and just copied and pasted yr original rather nasty response makes me wonder if there is any interest in having a genuine discussion....

[Shaktimaan]

48. I read it.

It's all about the west bank, not east jerusalem. They're different.

Israeli settlements in the OPT are illegal under international law, notably Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states categorically: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies."

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which includes the most contemporary and comprehensive enumeration of war crimes agreed by the international community, includes among the war crimes within the jurisdiction of the court the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies…when committed as part of a plan or policy or a part of a large scale commission of such crimes".

OK, so that said, since EJ was originally occupied by Jordan, who expelled the original Jewish inhabitants and moved in Jordanian citizens, who are now still living there, shouldn't this statute apply to it as well? Meaning that the Palestinians currently living in EJ are themselves illegal settlers. Or they are not but then neither are the Israelis.

There is no reason to think of EJ as more Palestinian than Israeli, after all.

[Jefferson23]

56. Take note please:

– Seven years after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that Israel’s construction of a barrier in the occupied Palestinian territory was illegal, a United Nations report released today shows that communities and households in East Jerusalem have been isolated by the wall.
“As Palestinians in these areas have West Bank residency status, they have no right to live in the Jerusalem municipal area,” said the report prepared by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to coincide with the anniversary of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the impact of the barrier in the Jerusalem area issued in July 2004.

The report says that Palestinians “are forced to cross checkpoints to access educational and health services, and even to do their shopping. Their family members from the West Bank cannot visit them unless they obtain Jerusalem entry permits.”

The report also highlights the impact of the barrier on Palestinian farmers, whose access to their land in the so-called “Seam Zone” behind the barrier is severely limited.

“These farmers depend on Israeli-issued permits to access their land through gates which are only open for limited periods. This policy is devastating agricultural livelihoods throughout the West Bank,” according to the document. OCHA has over the past five years been issuing reports on the effects of the barrier on Palestinians on the anniversary of the ICJ Advisory Opinion.

The report calls on the Israeli authorities to abide by the ICJ Advisory Opinion by ceasing construction of the barrier and to reroute constructed sections to the Green Line, dismantle sections of the barrier already completed, and to repeal the gate and the permit regime.

“Only then will Palestinian communities cut off by the barrier be able to exercise their rights to freedom of movement, work, education, health and enjoy an adequate standard of living,” the report added.

Although Israel has stated that the barrier is only a temporary security measure, the ICJ said that the specific route chosen is unnecessary to achieve its security objectives, with most of the wall running inside the West Bank, instead of the so-called Green Line, or 1949 Armistice Line.



News Tracker: past stories on this issue

Israel barrier must come down, UN rights expert says

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39006&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

[Shaktimaan]

74. you are entitled to your opinion.

But your last post has nothing whatoever to do with my question or any of the content of the thread in general. This thread is about the legal and ethical issues surrounding building these 1,100 new homes in EJ. If you missed it my question was thus:

Seeing that the Palestinians were never slated to have EJ as part of their state by the UN plan; that they were not an ethnic majority in Jerusalem within the last few hundred years at least and never in recorded history ruled over it, the argument that it should be automatically by consdered Palestinian land under occupation seems weak. Best case scenario, the Palestinian claim to EJ is equal to the Israeli's claim of it.

That said, we should probably assume that thew Rome Statute was meant to be applied equally and without predjudice, right?

In that case, can anyone explain why it is ONLY recent Israeli settlers who are considered to be illegally settling occupied land and face eviction, transfer and home demolition? How come ALL of the Arabs living there who Jordan moved in as Palestinian citizens of Jordan (directly following the exulsion of every, single Jew, the demolition of their synogagues and the conspicuous re-use of their ancient tombstones as building material to house the new settlers), are unquestioningly seen as East Jerusalem's rightful inhabitants?

[Jefferson23]

75. I based my opinion on the ruling. I could answer you with an opinion

that would involve from your perspective what should be the focus, which is: "the argument that it should be automatically by consdered Palestinian land under occupation seems weak. Best case scenario, the Palestinian claim to EJ is equal to the Israeli's claim of it."



My post had everything to do with this. I don't believe I misunderstood your post, we look at it from different perspectives. The international legal consensus is clear, the ICJ.


I can imagine from your perspective the ruling is unfair, but do you imagine the court did not examine this thoroughly enough?

Re: "In that case, can anyone explain why it is ONLY recent Israeli settlers who are considered to be illegally settling occupied land and face eviction, transfer and home demolition? How come ALL of the Arabs living there who Jordan moved in as Palestinian citizens of Jordan (directly following the exulsion of every, single Jew, the demolition of their synogagues and the conspicuous re-use of their ancient tombstones as building material to house the new settlers), are unquestioningly seen as East Jerusalem's rightful inhabitants?" (end)


EU foreign policy chief and US secretary of state attack plans to build illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.

Last Modified: 28 Sep 2011 16:48

The European Union and the United States have condemned Israeli plans for the construction of 1,100 new housing units in occupied East Jerusalem as being counterproductive to negotiations on peace talks with the Palestinians.

They responded sharply to the Israeli interior ministry's announcement on Tuesday that it had approved plans for the new housing units in Gilo, an illegal settlement enclave in southeast Jerusalem.

The ministry said construction could begin after a mandatory 60-day period for public comment, a process that is largely a formality.

snip* They have demanded that Israel halt all settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the adjacent occupied West Bank - territories captured and illegally occupied by Israel since 1967 - as a condition for resuming peace talks.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/201192851113137636.html

on edit for spelling.

[Shaktimaan]

80. the ruling?

the ruling focused exclusively on the issue of the wall's legality.

What I am discussing is the legality of the settlements in EJ themselves. Crucially, my point is that the legal mechanism which would hold them to be illegal would equally determine the Palestinian inhabitants as illegal too. There is no difference between the Jewish settler's rights and methodology and the Palestinians... just that the Palestinians who settled there were never designated as "settlers" since Jordan was the occupier and any EJ inhabitants who might object (the Jews) had been long since evicted.

I can imagine from your perspective the ruling is unfair, but do you imagine the court did not examine this thoroughly enough?

Well, of course not. The court only examined the case brought before it which was the Wall. It touched on the issue of legality regarding Jewish settlers out of necessity. But it never considered the issue of Palestinian settlement as Jordanians violating the Geneva Accord or Rome Statute.

Incidentally, the international legal consensus is only clear insofar as what the ICJ thinks. Dissenting legal opinions certainly exist and should be explored, especially considering the tendency of UN affiliated groups' clear political bias against Israel. Legal experts such as Julius Stone and Howard Grief have argued that International Law supports Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and/or the West Bank as well.

Personally I find a HUGE contradiction in the court's findings. Namely that they rejected Israel's argument of self-defense on the grounds that Palestine was not a state and the terrorism originated from within an area that Israel had control over. This implies that Palestine is not held to the standards of the Geneva Convention. Yet when it comes to Israel's occupation of the OPT they abide by an interpretation that the OPT qualifies as a contracting party to the conventions.

Judge Buergenthal makes a similar-ish remark.

Judge Buergenthal is prepared to assume that on a thorough analysis of all relevant facts, a
finding could well be made that some or even all segments of the wall being constructed by Israel
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory violate international law. But he believes that for the Court to
reach such conclusion with regard to the wall as a whole without having before it or seeking to
ascertain all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel’s legitimate right of self-defence,
military necessity and security needs, given the repeated deadly terrorist attacks in and upon Israel
proper coming from the Occupied Palestinian Territory to which Israel has been and continues to
be subjected, cannot be justified as a matter of law. In this connection, Judge Buergenthal shows
that the right of self-defence does not apply only to attacks by State actors and that armed attacks
on Israel proper originating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory must be deemed, in the context
of this case, to meet the requirements of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

[Jefferson23]

81. Yes, the ruling.

Your statement: the ruling focused exclusively on the issue of the wall's legality.

What I am discussing is the legality of the settlements in EJ themselves. Crucially, my point is that the legal mechanism which would hold them to be illegal would equally determine the Palestinian inhabitants as illegal too. There is no difference between the Jewish settler's rights and methodology and the Palestinians... just that the Palestinians who settled there were never designated as "settlers" since Jordan was the occupier and any EJ inhabitants who might object (the Jews) had been long since evicted. (end)

The ruling:

History of the proceedings (paras. 1-12)

The Court first recalls that on 10 December 2003 the Secretary-General of the United
Nations officially communicated to the Court the decision taken by the General Assembly to
submit the question set forth in its resolution ES-10/14, adopted on 8 December 2003 at its Tenth
Emergency Special Session, for an advisory opinion. The question is the following:

“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall
being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the
Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including
the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General
Assembly resolutions?”

Findings in summary: snip* The Court
concludes that all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and that
Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

There are always dissenting opinions, but as far as bias as you suggest is involved here, I don't believe is supported by Buergenthal's
dissenting opinion. Richard Goldstone also referred to East Jerusalem as occupied territory as well in the Goldstone report.

Did Hillary Clinton criticize Israel's new construction in East Jerusalem at the AIPAC conference as a mere political gesture in your opinion
to appease the Palestinians, or that she understood that EJ is recognized as occupied territory?

I ask this b/c I want to touch on the fact that as far as I recall, the United States response which came through Colin Powell at the
time was not to challenge the ruling on any level, but they basically said...this was none of your business, never should have heard the case in the first place etc. I took this to mean they would look very foolish to try and argue against the findings, they were more than solid enough
and almost completely in agreement. Do you think if the US, Israel's best supporter, would not have been critical of the findings on its legal
merits if they thought they could so with credibility?

Your statement: Personally I find a HUGE contradiction in the court's findings. Namely that they rejected Israel's argument of self-defense on the grounds that Palestine was not a state and the terrorism originated from within an area that Israel had control over. This implies that Palestine is not held to the standards of the Geneva Convention. Yet when it comes to Israel's occupation of the OPT they abide by an interpretation that the OPT qualifies as a contracting party to the conventions. (end)

What you refer to about Buergenthal is an opinion of his dissenting opinion. His owns words seem clear enough, no?

snip from Buergenthal's dissenting opinion: Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the demonstrable great hardship to which the affected Palestinian population is being subjected in and around the enclaves created by those segments of the wall, I seriously doubt that the wall would here satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as a legitimate measure of self-defence.


snip* "To sum up, the Court, from the material available to it, is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was
necessary to attain its security objectives. The wall, along the route
chosen, and its associated régime gravely infringe a number of rights
of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the
infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military
exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public
order. The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes
breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable
international humanitarian law and human rights instruments."

(Para. 137.)
The Court supports this conclusion with extensive quotations of the relevant
legal provisions and with evidence that relates to the suffering the
wall has caused along some parts of its route. But in reaching this conclusion,
the Court fails to address any facts or evidence specifically rebutting
Israel's claim of military exigencies or requirements of national security.
It is true that in dealing with this subject the Court asserts that it
draws on the factual summaries provided by the United Nations Secretary-
General as well as some other United Nations reports. It is equally
true, however, that the Court barely addresses the summaries of Israel's
position on this subject that are attached to the Secretary-General's
report

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1687.pdf



Israel's response, UNGA on ICJ.

http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48908977.html


on edit to add, I want to say I left Israel's response to address your specific concern as you mention they, the court, did not
consider Israel's argument. Israel did not want the court to hear the question, if they believed as you do the validity of
your assertion, why would they hesitate the court and not bring the question to them from their legal perspective?

To suggest bias over and over again as Israel claims and as others do about the UN, I believe the question was placed before them
to eliminate the incessant call of bias. What in your opinion would have been a better approach for Israel, if not before the ICJ,
then who?

I will also add that and I think you would agree that nations, and specifically the US government, would not appreciate seeing the
members of the Bush administration before the ICJ for any of their decisions that impacted people with literally fatal results.

The ICJ was told, mind your own business, and in a world with governments that are not held accountable, this world court
gives me hope.

[vminfla]

22. What international regulations are there for neighborhood redevelopment?

Do we really want the UN to tell us just how big our swimming pool should be?

[Jefferson23]

23. Read the ICJ ruling, advisory 2004. n/t

[vminfla]

35. A non-binding resolution that would have resulted in loss of life

if it had been followed. What else you got? The Israelis rightly ignored the ICJ' "whitepaper" regarding the defensive wall. As a result of it, terrorism within Israeli borders have been reduced and lives have been saved. Who would, in all good conscience, be opposed to saving lives?

[Jefferson23]

36. I don't need anything else, Israel does and they're out of excuses,

just as you are.

They can build their wall, on their land.

You support illegal settlements here just as you smeared the Veterans for Peace in another thread..with bullshit.

[vminfla]

37. Israel focuses on results

The defensive wall saves lives. Those are great results.

As far as illegal settlements, there were clearly permits issued.

[Jefferson23]

38. Permits issued, that's a nice one for a pro-settler movement t-shirt too.

The wall steals land, that was the objective then and remains so today.

[vminfla]

39. The wall saves lives

That was the objective then, and the facts bear that out today.

[Jefferson23]

40. Yea, it was just a coincidence where they placed it. Getting away

with it thus far does not mean most of the world hasn't figured it out.

Enjoy Israel's further isolation.

[vminfla]

41. So saving lives is bad?

Is that your point? You want to go back to the good old days when a terrorist can just strap on a suicide belt and go kill people. Let's look at the statistics from 2001:


3.2 2001 (40 bombings)
3.3 2002 (47 bombings)
3.4 2003 (23 bombings)
3.5 2004 (18 bombings)
3.6 2005 (9 bombings)
3.7 2006 (3 bombings)
3.8 2007 (1 bombing)
3.9 2008 (2 bombings)


That is a lot of lives saved. If the ineffectual UN is not interested in saving lives, the Israelis will.

[Jefferson23]

42. No link from you, you sure you really want to do a death toll comparison?

You should give this some thought before proceeding.

[vminfla]

43. Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

Why would I want to do an irrelevant comparison? this thread is about zoning laws and safety barriers.

[Jefferson23]

58. You can ignore international law, but be aware, there are consequences for

such arrogance..these things can come back to bite you. You can ignore Israel's continued moves which
produce further isolation for itself, this will have consequences too, none of them good.

The thing about the suicide bombers not many in the Israeli government like to talk about is the death toll
of Palestinians before that ever commenced.

[vminfla]

63. Argumentum ad Populum

So, certain indviduals do not like Israel defending itself, and that makes it wrong. That logical fallacy you employed is called Argumentum ad Populum. Just because the majority of southerners believed in slavery in the US never made it right. Just because the ICJ writes a "whitepaper" telling Israel what kind of defensive barriers it can and cannot put up, does not mean that Israel needs to be obligated by it.

[Jefferson23]

64. No, that is not applicable..the ICJ is an international court, and the

findings are based inconveniently for Israel, on law, not some arbitrary biased obscure opinion. Israel does not have to
adhere to thus far, true. That can change, and why I said their continued isolation they seem to be pursuing at breakneck
speed may come back to bite them.

[vminfla]

66. The ICJ provided an "advisory opinion"

And you know what they say about opinions and a part of the human anatomy, everyone has one.

The ICJ' opinion is markedly different than the reality on the ground. The barrier continues to save lives. That should be enough to quash any irrational dissent. Anyone that is results oriented and values human life would be pleased with the number of lives saved by the barrier.

[Jefferson23]

67. Anyone that appreciates the rights of all human beings would urge

Israel to obey the law.

Adios.

[vminfla]

68. Asked and answered

OK, and? Israel received the non-binding "whitepaper" from the ICJ. And, after careful consideration, chose to dismiss the whitepaper as unrealistic and a detriment to the safety and well-being of human beings. Any reasonable person would see that the ICJ' expectactions were unrealistic and their logic faulty. Given the results, history has clearly proven Israel right with regards to the barrier.

[shira]

69. Please....anyone interested in the rights of Palestinians would be against a Palestinian state...

...controlled by Hamas and Fatah.

A terrorist, racist, totalitarian, apartheid state that abuses its civilians is something you should be against if you appreciate the rights of all human beings.

[azurnoir]

18. apparently Jerusalems zoning laws don't stop Haredi from living in parking garages

While mainstream Israelis protest the high cost of housing in tent camps around the country, in the subterranean parking lots of high-rise apartment buildings in Jerusalem, Haredim are living in improvised dwellings.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/notes-from-the-ultra-orthodox-underground-1.377125

[vminfla]

19. Times are tough everywhere

Looks like Israel is dealing with a lot of foreclosures as well.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. Do you live in a

racially/ethnically/religiously segregated neighborhood?

[Jefferson23]

24. Nice thread for the pro-settlement crowd. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

45. Thank heavens I've got the vast majority on ignore.

It makes these threads readable.

[holdencaufield]

46. Yes, make sure...

... that you'll never hear anything but your own opinion parroted back at you. That way, you can pretend there is consensus of opinion.

[Jefferson23]

59. I have to admit it is tempting sometimes.

Some of the comments seem right out of the neocon 101 class.

[Crunchy Frog]

73. I figure I'm on a progressive web site because I don't care to read RW views.

If I wanted to read right wing twaddle, I'd be hanging out at Freak Republic.

Anyway, I can pretty much deduce what's being said, just by reading the responses.

[oberliner]

70. There is no "pro-settlement crowd"

Not sure where you would get that from.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jefferson23]

27. WATCH: Obama stresses U.S. commitment to Israel in Rosh Hashanah message

In short and low-key video message, U.S. President Barack Obama extends greetings to Jews everywhere.
By Natasha Mozgovaya

U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday extended a Rosh Hashannah greeting to Jews in the United States and the rest of the world in a recorded YouTube message.

This year's video, as opposed to previous years, had a much more low-key message which resembled his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, in which he said reaching peace is "hard work."

"My Administration is doing everything we can to promote prosperity here at home and security and peace throughout the world – and that includes reaffirming our commitment to the State of Israel," Obama said. "As Jewish tradition teaches us, we may not complete the work, but that must never keep us from trying."

Obama also continued to stress the U.S. commitment to Israel.

"While we cannot know all that the New Year will bring, we do know this: the United States will continue to stand with Israel, because the bond between our two nations is unshakable," he said.

In his Rosh Hashanah message in 2010, Obama urged Israelis and Palestinians to seize the opportunity for peace.

"At a time when Israelis and Palestinians have returned to direct dialogue, it is up to us to encourage and support those who are willing to move beyond their differences and work towards security and peace in the Holy Land," Obama said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/watch-obama-stresses-u-s-commitment-to-israel-in-rosh-hashanah-message-1.387067

[bemildred]

49. Israel approves new housing despite pleas for delay

Reporting from Jerusalem—
Israel gave preliminary approval Tuesday to the construction of about 1,100 new housing units in East Jerusalem, brushing aside pleas from U.S. and European diplomats to delay the controversial project as they attempt to restart peace talks.

The Interior Ministry's green light will clear the way for a significant expansion of the Jewish development of Gilo, on land seized by Israel during the 1967 Middle East War.

Critics said the move is a setback for the Mideast "quartet" —the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia — which last week issued a call for Israelis and Palestinians to resume direct talks within the next month.

Neither side has formally responded to the quartet, but chances of a return to the negotiating table were seen as slim even before the Gilo expansion was announced.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-housing-20110928,0,5140697.story

[vminfla]

51. Shovel ready projects should be greenlighted

We need to do all that we can to get the global economy back on track. It's about the jobs.

[azurnoir]

52. but Netanyahu said he's willing to negotiate right after the building plans were announced

so that means it's all the Palestinians fault or something :sarcasm:

[bemildred]

53. Sure he will "negotiate", they've been "negotiating" for decades now.

Negotiating can be away to resolve issues or it can be a way to stall. It all depends.

[bemildred]

54. Egypt slams Israel over new construction in East Jerusalem

Egypt's Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr on Wednesday condemned Israel's plan to construct 1,100 homes in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem.

"This illegal measure represents a new and glaring Israeli defiance to the international community, which endeavors to restore credibility to the peace process," Amr, now on a visit to the US, said in a statement released by the Egyptian Foreign Ministry.

"Egypt is really worried over the steady rise in the pace of settlements construction, especially in the past two months when the building of more than 6,000 homes has been approved," he added.

Egypt was the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. But their relations have recently suffered their worst crisis.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/egypt-slams-israel-over-new-construction-in-east-jerusalem-1.387212

[vminfla]

60. Don't forget it's "unilateral" too

Egypt's Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr on Wednesday unilaterally condemned Israel's plan...

[bemildred]

62. You need another: "condemned Israel's unilateral plan..." nt

[Violet_Crumble]

79. Shame on you! Calling any plan of Israel's unilateral is anti-Israel!!

;)

[Jefferson23]

61. Keep it up Bibi, no one is watching nor cares.

:sarcasm:

[Centrist2011]

91. Settlements

This is outrageous. I am a strident supporter of the two-state solution, and I think that we need to be more firm with Israel, and make them stop this, and in turn make them be firm with the settlers. I hope they are arrested, if that's what's needed to make them stop.

[Cherchez la Femme]

92. Curiously, Israel double crosses itself

By, as Ariel Sharon said, it forcibly threads settlements throughout Palestinian land 'like (as) a pastrami sandwich';
hence creating the impossibility of two separate and contiguous states. It obviously follows that the Two State solution is undoubtedly impossible. Thus, the only option left is One State solution, in which of course "A Jewish State" hasn't a prayer, to stay within the religious theme.

The Jewish people pride themselves upon their intelligence, and rightfully so; but if they think they can either remove all the many, right-wing settlers (which they deliberately courted, then planted without their borders) to within contiguous boundaries within Israel proper, preferably to the 1967 Green Line as proscribed by International Law;
OR establish a Jewish State with what will soon be a majority of Muslims and still keep their vaunted 'Democracy',

to wit: keep said theological state

they are veritably insane.


It defies all logic. One can't help but wonder what they think the logical outcome of their stratagem will be?