• We are currently experiencing delays with our email service, which may affect logins and notifications. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience while we work to resolve the issue.

UN Panel: Israeli Settlements Are Illegal

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/un-panel-israeli-settlements-illegal_n_2589394.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20130131-un-israel-remove-illegal-settlements-report

GENEVA -- The United Nations' first report on Israel's overall settlement policy describes it as a "creeping annexation" of territory that clearly violates the human rights of Palestinians, and calls for Israel to immediately stop further such construction.


The report's conclusions, revealed Thursday, are not legally binding, but they further inflame tensions between the U.N. Human Rights Council and Israel, and between Israel and the Palestinians. Israeli officials immediately denounced the report, while Palestinians pointed to it as "proof of Israel's policy of ethnic cleansing" and its desire to undermine the possibility of a Palestinian state.


The Palestinians also hinted that they could use the report as a basis for legal action toward a war crimes prosecution.

israel-settlements.jpg


there is no way they're ever going to dismantle these illegal settlements. those look to be permanent, unless they decide to leave peacefully and let the Palestinians move into those nice complexes (LOL) :\
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Last mass exodus off Israel from settlements end with the complete destruction of the settlement infrastructure itself.





By the Palestinians :confused:





When the UN panels starts to act in an evenhanded unbiased role, then Israel may be concerned and pay attention.
 
Last edited:

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
EagleKeeper, if you wish to decry bias then the onus is upon you to demonstrate the regular crimes committed by an external party(s) within the recognised territory of the State of Israel. Israel, alone, may not define what it is. It takes external states to recognise and thereby define that, just as Israel received at its creation and the State of Palestine has received last fall.

Now for crimes against Israelis and Israel, some of those crimes do involve the indiscriminate lobbing of rockets into civilian areas - though, on balance, vastly more civilians and civilian property has been lost to Israeli aggression, thereby nullifying much of a balanced legal complaint by Israel for concern against militant forces in Gaza.

As it stands, the high crimes have long stood and remain a one way direction of international aggression in concerns to territorial expansion, ethnic forced evictions, and colonisation by one state into extraterritorial jurisdiction of a past external entity and now a neighbouring state. You refuse to recognise these facts on the ground.

Yet that point is mute as you are on the record of chosen disregard for international law and you live well into a long finished and barbaric past for believing territory conquered in warfare returns valid and immediate legal title. That period in international legal history concisely ended soon after the defeat of Germany and Japan, and just before the creation of the State of Israel.

Into ad nauseum, You remain grossly in error and this will be yet another wasteful thread where you stick with your failed mantra of pro-militant-Zionist talking points and treating this forum as an echo chamber.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
So China's actions against Tibets are "legally" different than what Israel does.

Or is it because China is the big guy in the city that it is OK.

Israel is just the big guy on the little block.

No one condemned Jordan and Egypt for doing the same as Israel.

Again, while you may favor unequal treatment, I do not accept the hypocrisy of the UN favoring the Arabs.

Had the Palestinians and Arabs succeeded in their intentions there would be no Israel. The Palestinians do not deserve another do over (6+ at minimum), but need to settle up with what is are provided as choices instead of wanting new rules to favor them. They agreed to the rules originally.
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
Which points of this commission's findings have no legal basis? What is in error?

EagleKeeper, you are sadly predictable..... The onus is upon to cite what law permits the extraterritorial conquest of external territory and the colonisation of that land.

You cannot do that because such laws to oppose all of that are present and ratified by Israel.

Now, as your record is to keep running away from threads to rehash with the same defeated arguments, rather than us going back and forth in circles, I will repost relevant and cited content to nullify your claims, and as the predicable result is, have you run away until a new Israel/Palestine begins for you again present familiar failure.
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
So China's actions against Tibets are "legally" different than what Israel does.
I will prove how failed and predictable you are. This was a post of mine from 5 days ago:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes EagleKeeper, your same old ignorant meme of neglecting international law and reverting back to ended periods of history where the likes of the German Third Reich also lived by power to take and hold, was what it took to win.

Your militaristic and imperialist view of the world is that of the past, a past that just predates the creation of the State of Israel. A militaristic and violent past that was not only ended but, ironically to your sad and false position, the German military machine and its genocide of Jews being a founding motivation and reason for the recognition of the State of Israel. ^_^

No doubt you may plan on again bringing up rational that China, the USSR, and other post-WWII states illegally expanded and retained territory -- and you would be correct. Though, let me pre-empt that. It has been your repeated choice to morally and legal equate Israel to such tyrannical and repressive states. :hmm: What a low bar you are on record for holding the State of Israel to.

Hell, just a few posts ago I predicted you would again fling out the same failed arguments as you had in the past. You are solidly incapable of honestly recognising your errors and will steadfastly carry forth falsehoods to remain argumentative with an unapologetic defence for Israeli crimes.

No. The ratified laws that the State of Israel and most other states in the world bound to, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.

Damnit, dude, I referenced one of Israelis strongest backers such as Canada who's current government reaffirm such damning legal reality against Israeli extraterritorial expansion in the West Bank. Zionist militarist expansionists such as yourself are the great instigating extremists and advocators for the practised high crimes.
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
This thread concerns law, so let's recap:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With last years achievement to statehood, here is what legally changed for the now existing State of Palestine:

  • Upon joining the Rome Statute, Palestine, as territory of a member party, may pursue investigations against crimes committed upon its territory by any state or individual. Criminal acts may only be those henceforth from the Palestinian signatory date. The Palestinian Authority did not fail last Spring to bring an ICC investigation against Israel due to Israel no longer being a part to the Rome State, rather it failed as it was determined by the prosecutor that the PA did not meet the requirements as state per the Rome Statute. As voted by the United Nations General Assembly, that status will change tomorrow.
  • Israel, as the USA and Sudan, are no longer party to the Rome Statue, and thereby may not directly approach the International Criminal Court to pursue action for any crimes committed upon its territory. Israel's only recourse is to obtain third party referral from the United Nations Security Council, as was done a few years ago for domestic investigations against the government of Sudan.
Here is the Wiki synopsis of the ICCs Territorial Jurisdiction:






During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States.[46] A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under the following limited circumstances:
  • where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);
  • where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
  • where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.[21]



Israeli does not have immunity from the ICC for its actions upon Palestinian Territory. The domestic borders of Israel are well defined, internationally recognised, and reaffirmed in multiple past UN Resolutions, particularly UNSC Resulution 242 (1967):

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Summarising the legal realities:

  • Jurisdiction of the Rome Statute is clearly defined by that of territory of its member parties.
  • Legally, Israel is a state as defined by its 1967 borders, anything beyond that into Gaza and the West Bank is concisely recognised as external territory to that of Israel.
  • If a signatory to the Rome Statute, a Palestinian Authority may request the ICC to investigate crimes within its mandate against any entity enacting those crimes within its territory, as territory of a member party.
This is precisely why Israel has been scrambled before last years UN General Assembly vote with multiple states (Britain, France, Canada, the USA, etc.) to bring unjust pressure upon the Palestinian Authority to deny its ambition to join the Rome Statute.


It is not radical to define Israeli extraterritorial expansion as criminal. Even Israel's state love in from Canada's Harper government has yet to refute its Department of Foreign Affairs 2 year old declaration against Israeli:

In 2010 then foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon raised some eyebrows when he condemned Israel's announcement to build 1,600 apartments in east Jerusalem, saying that "we feel that this is contrary to international law and therefore condemn it.


Particularly with the pressing for the E-1 corridor land theft and colonisation and with the forthcoming moral and legal challenges that will soon increase against Israel for its well recorded and continuing extra-territorial actions, the lebensraum addicted Israel is rightfully running scared.
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
....and a final block of familiar but pertinent text:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A bit of background about me. I am of Jewish descent, particularly from a prominent family of notable lawyers and judges from Ottawa and Montreal. Much of that family fled what is now Eastern Poland just before the outbreak of WWI. From direct experiences with exhumations in Guatemala through to travels throughout Europe, the Middle East, South East Asia, and Japan, I developed a strong interest and empathy to how bigotry rises and genocides come to be plus the fallout from them. Genocide is the extreme end game of bigotry and supremacism.

A tad ironic in consideration to his nationalistic and unwavering defence for Israeli extraterritorial behaviour, is a decent book and accompanying documentary upon genocide and how it can be, by Daniel Goldhagen, Worse than War. Pains of witnessing the start of a genocide but deterred against its prevention was well detail in Lt-Gen. Roméo Dallaire's, Shake Hands with the Devil.

This is particularly why I have acted strongly against the rise of racism and brutal calls to violence upon targeted groups that have been presented on this forum. There is a common supremacist and derogatory path presented in history that enables societies to commit great crimes. As a Jew, I am deeply ashamed of assumed association with the State of Israel for its explicit crimes and paralleling policies and actions to states and religions that have many times throughout the millennia persecuted Jews. Let's be clear, the State of Israel was founded as a political entity with freedom for religion at its core and separated from religion, a homeland welcoming to Jews, not a religious Jewish state. This has become conflated and perversed both from within Israel and external parties. I am not alone as a Jew who can separate that of religion and religious sects from the State of Israel and recognise valid criticism of that state does not imply criticism of Judaism and Jews. Actions by the State of Israel in the former Palestinian territories (now the State of Palestine) are a sordid defamation against the painful history of the Jewish people and much a bloody repeat of the same crimes committed against ourselves. This drives me to achieve fairness for all peoples in this world and to never permit the bigotry and supremacism to again gain an upper hand.

Considering there was just a recent thread arguing in defence of the South African Apartheid state, let's examine how that path in history contributed to the evolution of international criminal law and how those laws may have a direct bearing against the State of Israel:

Race, as in the classic genetic/visible distinction for the a group, is most certainly not the only characteristic for defining racial/ethnic groups nor is that limit for scope of the well defined legal word of apartheid.

Wiki article concerning the crime of Apartheid:

Definition of racial discrimination
According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[12]
This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.[13] Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".[14]

Article II of the ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as below:
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
Article II[1]

For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

  • Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
    • By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
    • By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
    • By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
  • Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
  • Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
  • Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
  • Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
and more, in direct relation to the ICC

ICC definition of the crime of apartheid
Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as:

Article 7Crimes against humanity
  1. For the purpose of this Statute, 'crime against humanity' means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
    • Murder;
    • Extermination;
    • Enslavement;
    • Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    • Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    • Torture;
    • Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    • Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    • Enforced disappearance of persons;
    • The crime of apartheid;
    • Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.[15]
Later in Article 7, the crime of apartheid is defined as:
The 'crime of apartheid' means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.[15]

As presented, Apartheid is the perfectly applicable word for the Israeli occupation and supremacist extraterritorial expansion in the present State of Palestine. Sadly historically ironical of Israel taking to heart to enact the latter day Imperial and later Nazi Germany's expansionist lebensraum and from the Venice to Warsaw's ghettoization of Palestine.

History has set the precedent for multiple distasteful words. Unfortunately the bigotry and aggression of the state of Israel continuously act to warrant the labelling of such dirty truth, right on down to apartheid.

For its actions beyond its state borders and for its continued actions within the State of Palestine, now a likely jurisdictional territory and party to the Rome Statute, multiple Israeli actors do reasonably fear ICC action taken against them.

With the loud and recent pressure brought against the Palestinian Authority participating in the ICC, a now certifiably accepted state government of the territory of the Israeli occupied state of Palestine, there is a justifiably strong Israeli state fear of the ICC bringing action against Israeli state actors for their foreign and aggressively criminal actions on the ground of Palestine. Damning facts on the ground, if we will.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
I do not care about the bar.

The UN commissions refuse to hold each country to the same standard.

They want a higher bar against Israel because of Arab and originally anti US bias led ny the Soviets. The Arabs and Palestinians are not held accountable but everyone wants Israel in defending itself to be.

If you want to apply a legal standard, apply it across the board
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
Israel and Israelis are equally may sue to courts as the State of Palestine and Palestinians. Yet what external actors are acting against and within the State of Israeli to make a reason to appeal to an international body?
I do not care about the bar.
Yes, thank you for admitting that you are a criminal at heart and disregard law.

Therefore I will also judge that you also find Israel guilty of in the eyes of the law. Yet, where you differ is your lack or conscience and morality by gleefully prancing upon immunity for the greater Israel with a big boot marching thumping against law and civility.

You are against the norms of society, an advocate for anarchy, repression, warfare, bigotry, and ethnic cleansing.

Thank you, for clearing the record and stating such upon the record.

Our discussion is apparently over discussion is over.
 
Last edited:

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
U.N. Human Rights Council. LOL. Out of 19 special sessions, 6 have been about Israel, and all anti-Israeli. If it weren't for the Syrian civil war, it would be 6/15.
And the U.N. Human Rights council is better than its predecessor.
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,587
3
81
who honestly gives a flying fuck about the UN anymore? all they ever do is bitch and moan, when was the last time the UN actually swung into action and saved the day? take Mali for instance, the UN couldn't get off their asses to do shit so France said fuck it and went in to clean up yet another African mess... and even when the UN gets their heads out of their collective asses it's always the usual Nato suspects that has to go in and do all the heavy lifting.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
EagleKeeper, you are sadly predictable..... The onus is upon to cite what law permits the extraterritorial conquest of external territory and the colonisation of that land.

If you start a war and lose you don't get to throw a fit when the country you decided to pick a fight with takes some of your land.

It sounds to me like the Arabs want a heads they win tails you lose kind of deal.

If the Arabs had beaten Israel do you think they would return Israel's land to the Jews?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,897
55,175
136
It has been common knowledge that Israeli settlements violate the Geneva conventions and has been for quite some time. What is news here? The settlements are illegal and the Israeli government is acting lawlessly? We know.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,897
55,175
136
U.N. Human Rights Council. LOL. Out of 19 special sessions, 6 have been about Israel, and all anti-Israeli. If it weren't for the Syrian civil war, it would be 6/15.
And the U.N. Human Rights council is better than its predecessor.

Of course the UN Human Rights council is joined in its opinion by almost every nation on earth along with the international legal community.

Sure they pick on Israel, but they are still right in this case.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
I don't approve of the Israeli settlements -- I think they are detrimental to any chance of a two-state solution, and thus harm the chances for peace for both Palestinians and Israelis alike.

That said, the UN has absolutely NO credibility when it comes to anything concerning Israel. They blew that a long time ago.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
Of course the UN Human Rights council is joined in its opinion by almost every nation on earth along with the international legal community.

Sure they pick on Israel, but they are still right in this case.

As long as the Palestinians refuse to come to the table and set borders, Israel is justified in expanding.
The Palestinians want to have their cake and eat it too: They want a border that Israel cannot cross while at the same time not being held accountable when they cross it. No country can afford to accept, "What's yours is yours, and what's ours is yours for the taking."

Until the Palestinians are willing to adhere to borders, there are none, and Israel is justified in taking as much land as it takes for the Palestinians to realize that they're not winning this war. Palestinians care nothing for life, only land, so the taking of land is the only threat Israel can hold over the Palestinians to push them to stop their aggressive ways.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,689
6,739
126
I don't approve of the Israeli settlements -- I think they are detrimental to any chance of a two-state solution, and thus harm the chances for peace for both Palestinians and Israelis alike.

That said, the UN has absolutely NO credibility when it comes to anything concerning Israel. They blew that a long time ago.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Don't you think that a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires other things too or do we just pretend we know what the opinions of mankind are, which to pay attention to and which to ignore? Maybe a lot of the shit we say is only lofty words spouted as a pretense. Just some questions that come to my mind about what you said. I find who is credible and who is not difficult to assess as anything but my opinion. I wouldn't be able to prove it. I worry about my own certainty about things.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
To the victor goes the spoils. All is fair in love and war.

Arabs and palestinians attacked Israel during the war and Israel won! Therefore the loser lost their territory for trying to wipe out Israel. All the Territory belongs to Israel to do with as they want.

Tell the Soviet Union to give up all the territory they took during World War II!
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,689
6,739
126
As long as the Palestinians refuse to come to the table and set borders, Israel is justified in expanding.
The Palestinians want to have their cake and eat it too: They want a border that Israel cannot cross while at the same time not being held accountable when they cross it. No country can afford to accept, "What's yours is yours, and what's ours is yours for the taking."

Until the Palestinians are willing to adhere to borders, there are none, and Israel is justified in taking as much land as it takes for the Palestinians to realize that they're not winning this war. Palestinians care nothing for life, only land, so the taking of land is the only threat Israel can hold over the Palestinians to push them to stop their aggressive ways.

Oh, I don't know. Seems to me when Mao wanted Tibet the Dalai Lama said fine, take it. It seems to me there is more than one party under discussion who is attached to the notion of land.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,664
9,966
136
UN Panel: Israeli Settlements Are Illegal

United States has millions of illegals in it, and they're not even nuclear.

I sense a similar outcome, much ado about nothing because in the end Israel has its territory whether you recognize it or not.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,897
55,175
136
As long as the Palestinians refuse to come to the table and set borders, Israel is justified in expanding.
The Palestinians want to have their cake and eat it too: They want a border that Israel cannot cross while at the same time not being held accountable when they cross it. No country can afford to accept, "What's yours is yours, and what's ours is yours for the taking."

Until the Palestinians are willing to adhere to borders, there are none, and Israel is justified in taking as much land as it takes for the Palestinians to realize that they're not winning this war. Palestinians care nothing for life, only land, so the taking of land is the only threat Israel can hold over the Palestinians to push them to stop their aggressive ways.

I have to say I must have missed the section of the Geneva Conventions that made them okay to violate if the other guy was an asshole.

If you want to make excuses for Israel's repeated and ongoing violation of international law that's fine, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking their actions are anything other than such violations.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Let the UN move in troops and force a settlement. The UN is pure bullshit. Without the USA the UN has no power to do anything unless those countries want to cooperate. Let china move in troops and let their men die. France feel free to let your soldiers die. Same goes for South Korea, Japan, Russia and saudia arabia.
 
Last edited: