The Illegal-Settlements Myth

[curlyg]

You truly believe that if you get enough non-binding decisions they become binding in international law?
i.e. non-binding + non-binding + non-binding = binding!

Israel did not participate in the ICJ's hearings. It's arguments were not heard. You side with the ICJ against Israel, but did you even read the article above, Curly?

The non-binding nature of the resolutions is not the point. I am not suggesting that they might be binding because they are resolutions. The might embody a rule of customary law given the overwhelming consensus over the issue. But as I said I am not familiar with international law yet (I have not done any IL courses yet, I'm still in the early stages of my degree). I wasn't saying that this has actually happened, just that according to my basic understanding it is possible. In any case this wasn't really the main gist of my post.

I skimmed the article. I have read these arguments before, I've read some of Prof. Stone's defences of Israel and a number of subsequent critiques of his work. I'm not making a legal judgment against Israel - as I said I'm not yet familiar with international law. But it seems to me that for us, continuing to focus our efforts on international law is pointless. The legal consensus against Israel is quite overwhelming. More importantly the law is irrelevant. If the law required us to accept a Right of Return and withdraw to the green line with no population swap and entirely give away the Old City, which our critics argue it does, then the law is the end of us.

Curly, Since you're planning to specialize in the minutia of International Law, can you explain how conceding Israel is in violation of laws no other nation abides by, will secure Israel's national interests?

It won't, and Israel shouldn't admit to it. Like I said Israel should continue to argue its case in public. But I wouldn't expect it to make any difference.

You're probably a lot more fascinated with this topic than most of us, and might be in a capacity to argue on Israel's behalf one day, so can you dissect the article itself, and point out where it's wrong, if it is? Most every argument I've heard against Israel hinged on sentence structure in 2 or 3 Resolutions, and ignored the material in this article.

I can't, since I'm not familiar with it. But the ruling of the ICJ does deal with the material above if I recall correctly (I read it about a year ago) as do a variety of legal journal articles which can be found online.

And my original reason for studying international law was exactly so that I could argue on Israel's behalf on this basis, though now I'm doubtful it can do any good.

[bararallu]

Make lots of money, and donate to Israeli technology/business incubators. That is our best bet, aside from Aliah. Arguing against fakestinians in the ICJ et cetera is a complete waste of Jewish time.

[curlyg]

You truly believe that if you get enough non-binding decisions they become binding in international law?
i.e. non-binding + non-binding + non-binding = binding!

I just wanted to bring this up again because I've just begun my international law course. The answer I give at this stage is, tentatively, yes. But again I'm only at the beginning of my studies of IL so that may change.

From the ICJ ruling on Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons:

The Court notes that General Assembly resolutions, even if they are not binding, may sometimes have normative value. They can, in certain circumstances, provide evidence important for establishing the existence of a rule or the emergence of an opinio juris. To establish whether this is true of a given General Assembly resolution, it is necessary to look at its content and the conditions of its adoption; it is also necessary to see whether an opinio juris exists as to its normative character. Or a series of resolutions may show the gradual evolution of the opinio juris required for the establishment of a new rule.

And from the Nicaragua case:

opinio juris may, though with all due caution, be deduced from, inter alia, the attitude of the Parties and the attitude of states towards certain General Assembly resolutions ... The effect of consent to the text of such resolutions cannot be understood as merely "reiteration of elucidation" of the treaty commitment undertaken in the Charter. On the contrary, it may be understood as an acceptance of the validity of the rule or set of rules set out in the resolution by themselves.

Re this comment by dayag:

Show me where advisory opinions from the ICJ, whose jurisdiction Israel has never accepted, are binding upon it under international law.

I believe you are mistaken. Israel has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, that is, it has not signed the Rome Statute. It has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ; the ICJ is established under the UN Charter, to which Israel is a signatory. Obviously this is only an advisory opinion so it isn't strictly "binding" but that doesn't change the fact that it is a statement of the almost universally accepted application of international law to Israel's circumstances (challenged essentially only by Israel).

[dayag]

I still think you are incorrect, Curly. Your quotes do not say that these non-binding decisions automatically become binding international law, only that they may or can do so. The majority cannot change existing international law by passing a resolution that contradicts it.

Countries do not vote in the General Assembly based on their understanding of international law, but based on political considerations. The idea that the settlements are illegal is just an oft repeated lie, pushed by countries who mean our destruction.

[uthman7c]

[QUOTE=curlyg;317879]

The ICJ has already ruled in 2004 that the territories are occupied and the settlements illegal under international law (albeit in an advisory opinion). And given the plethora of UN resolutions concerning the matter I would say that in any case it is settled.

ICJ rulings are non-binding and, anyway, the ICJ is merely an arm of the UN controlled by the Arab and Islamic bloc. Nor, has Israel ever been represented on the ICJ.

The binding Palestine Mandate ratified by the League of Nations establishing "Palestine" as the Jewish National Home is the only enforceable document pertaining to the matter of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria

[doppess]

Hey there!

I don't have enough posts to start a new thread so I'll post to this, hope it's ok.

My question is about the Israeli settlements inside West Bank:
picture

This is all hypothetical but if there's a peace deal, I've understood there's going to be land swaps near the Green Line to include the Jewish settlements into Israel proper. What will be the situation of the settlement enclaves inside West Bank. What will be their destiny? Are they going to be abandoned or what will become of them. Is there someplace I could read more about this perhaps? What are your opinions on the matter? Let's assume that Israel will still have full control of military related outposts.

[Pleepleus]

Hey there!

I don't have enough posts to start a new thread so I'll post to this, hope it's ok.

My question is about the Israeli settlements inside West Bank:
picture

This is all hypothetical but if there's a peace deal, I've understood there's going to be land swaps near the Green Line to include the Jewish settlements into Israel proper. What will be the situation of the settlement enclaves inside West Bank. What will be their destiny? Are they going to be abandoned or what will become of them. Is there someplace I could read more about this perhaps? What are your opinions on the matter? Let's assume that Israel will still have full control of military related outposts.

That is a matter to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. I personally believe it should be up to the individual settlers on the Palestinian side of the hypothetical border to decide whether they want to remain in Palestine or repatriate to Israel.

What's your opinion on the matter, Doppess?

[doppess]

That is a matter to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. I personally believe it should be up to the individual settlers on the Palestinian side of the hypothetical border to decide whether they want to remain in Palestine or repatriate to Israel.

What's your opinion on the matter, Doppess?

I'm not that confident that the settlements and their population could be safe in the new Palestinian state. And those enclaves couldn't be part of Israel either. The two-state model would result in losing them, because no sane Israeli would live in them without the IDF's protection. I can't see any possibility other than abandoning them for the two-state model to succeed. That probably isn't politically or logistically possible, if the population resists it with passion like in the Sinai settlements.

Or is it possible that these settlements simply continue they way of life under Palestinian state in (relative) harmony?

[farmboy]

Or is it possible that these settlements simply continue they way of life under Palestinian state in (relative) harmony?

No
Abbas has said continually, that any Pallestinian state will be devoid of Jews, then christians then any other religion. The arabs are not very big on religious tollerance or womens rights or gay rights or the rights of children. If one does not fit completely within the mold that their muftis see as the perfect Moslem, then they are hysterically and violently against it.

[Reffo]

I'm not that confident that the settlements and their population could be safe in the new Palestinian state. And those enclaves couldn't be part of Israel either. The two-state model would result in losing them, because no sane Israeli would live in them without the IDF's protection

I would put it differently. I am confident that the Jewish population would NOT be safe.

Let's get real. ALL the major "settlement" blocs are near the green line (I am using their terminology even though as Dayag said, there is nothing illegitimate about Jews establishing their homes in Judea and Samaria). Why do I mention that? Because I believe that so long as the Palestinian Arabs insist on impractical "solutions" involving the abandonment of ANY large "settlements" or taking over large Jewish populations, that is a sign that they are not looking for peaceful solutions. It is a sign that they are looking to cause discord and friction amongst Israelis in order to weaken Israel to soften Israel up for the next stage ...

The Arabs have no shortage of land, just look at the map of the Middle East. Anyone who believes that those few "settlements" which are located around the old 1967 boundaries, are really THE obstacle to peace, is either naive or are hostile towards Israel. To me, it is easy to know when the possibility of peace WILL be real. Look for day when Arabs will negotiate in good faith and look for practical solutions under which Israel will keep ALL the major "settlement" blocs. In the meanwhile, all they are doing is messing with people's minds to try and fool them into believing that Israel is THE obstacle to peace. The Arabs are not the ones who invented propaganda but they sure are ardent practitioners of it. And they managed to fool a lot of people but not every one!

[doppess]

I would put it differently. I am confident that the Jewish population would NOT be safe.

Let's get real. ALL the major "settlement" blocs are near the green line (I am using their terminology even though as Dayag said, there is nothing illegitimate about Jews establishing their homes in Judea and Samaria). Why do I mention that? Because I believe that so long as the Palestinian Arabs insist on impractical "solutions" involving the abandonment of ANY large "settlements" or taking over large Jewish populations, that is a sign that they are not looking for peaceful solutions. It is a sign that they are looking to cause discord and friction amongst Israelis in order to weaken Israel to soften Israel up for the next stage ...

The Arabs have no shortage of land, just look at the map of the Middle East. Anyone who believes that those few "settlements" which are located around the old 1967 boundaries, are really THE obstacle to peace, is either naive or are hostile towards Israel. To me, it is easy to know when the possibility of peace WILL be real. Look for day when Arabs will negotiate in good faith and look for practical solutions under which Israel will keep ALL the major "settlement" blocs.

Let's say that Israel and PA reaches agreement about the major settlement blocks near the Green Line. I was talking about the enclaves that are far inside West Bank, e.g. near Nablus, Hebron, the Jordan border. I was wondering more about them than the settlements near the Green Line. You can see from the map that I linked that there are plenty of those that can't be incorporated to Israel proper. What would be the political reality of them...

[farmboy]

Israel will not leave the Jordan Valley, regardless of whatever final status agreement is made with the Palestinian Authority, says the PM.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...sh.aspx/230788
If there was ever to be a Palestinian state, there would need to be Jewish controlled enclaves. Population swaps would be inevitable and resisted by both sides.
Realistically could you ever envisage the Palestinians agreeing to anything?
If the moon was made of cheese, do you think that there would be varieties that we haven't tried yet? and which ones would you go for?

[Reffo]

Let's say that Israel and PA reaches agreement about the major settlement blocks near the Green Line. I was talking about the enclaves that are far inside West Bank, e.g. near Nablus, Hebron, the Jordan border. I was wondering more about them than the settlements near the Green Line. You can see from the map that I linked that there are plenty of those that can't be incorporated to Israel proper. What would be the political reality of them...

I think we are talking about a hypothetical situation. All I can say is that there are differing opinions about such a scenario. In case of 'the possibility of peace' many people like me would advocate pragmatism regarding the smaller and remote outposts. But it is a moot point. Before we even consider those remote outposts, there are other tell tale signs which tell us whether the Palestinian Arabs are looking for peace or are just playing games. For instance ...

1. Do they insist on the right of return?
2. Are they willing to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people?
3. Do they insist that the old city of Jerusalem should be exclusively Arab?
4. Are they willing to agree to Israel's security considerations?

the destiny of the small remote outposts should be discussed in conjunction of the above issues and more. Not in isolation. My feeling is that pragmatism by the Palestinian Arab side would beget pragmatism by Israel too. Conversely, no pragmatism by THEM will beget no pragmatism by Israel too. The days are gone when ONLY Israel is the side that makes concessions. The Palestinians NEED to start making concessions too.

[doppess]

Yeah, it's a very hypothetical situation. I just wanted to get some educated guesses from people who are more familiar with Israeli politics. I guess the newslink farmboy posted answered my question quite thoroughly.

Realistically could you ever envisage the Palestinians agreeing to anything?
If the moon was made of cheese, do you think that there would be varieties that we haven't tried yet? and which ones would you go for?

Not really. But there wouldn't be much to discuss under this subforum if we are content that 'Palestinians agree on nothing, the book is closed'. Even if it was the truth.

[Reffo]

I just wanted to bring this up again because I've just begun my international law course. The answer I give at this stage is, tentatively, yes. But again I'm only at the beginning of my studies of IL so that may change.

From the ICJ ruling on Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons:

This is what "international law" really IS ...

Judge Aharon Barak and his colleagues rebuked the ICJ, but could not yet bring themselves to state that international law has become another weapon in political warfare, without any moral authority

Even though they could not utter the words.

Here, read more in this link ...

The Myth of International Law