Are settlements illegal?

[Mycroft]

I'm looking for some information. I've read a lot of opinions on the matter, but not many take this into account:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a7...c!OpenDocument

Can anyone shed some light on this?

[Oh Jerusalem]

No time to go into this in depth at the moment but start here.

[peacelover]

ooh now you're asking! No one's opened this can of worms for a while!

To be honest, there's a lot of legal wrangling over the issue. Depends who you ask. To my mind, objectively it is not clear if they are illegal or legal.

I prefer to look at their moral worth - as in are they helpful to the peace process? Or are they vital to Israel's security?

I'm not actually sure where I stand on the issue of settlers, but I think the legal position is less important than the practical one when it comes to forming my opinion.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I'm looking for some information. I've read a lot of opinions on the matter, but not many take this into account:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a7...c!OpenDocument

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Gladly. The United Nations is a den of thieves, and anything it does beyond disaster relief and providing a discussion forum for countries enaged in or on the verge of hostile actions is illegimate.

For example, the UN passed a resolution stating that when Jews exercise the right to self-determination accorded all other nations, the Jews are racists.

But when the US began withholding its disproportionate funding, the UN rescinded the resolution in order to get its grubby hands on the $.

Of course, the UN passes resolution after resolution on the behalf of backwards, ignorant, and racist Muslim countries against Israel, while the UN remains silent as Palestinian barbarians mass murder Jews on busses and in restaurants with constant encouragement and support from Arab and Muslim countries.

When Israel proposed a resolution calling for at least Israeli children to be protected from savage attacks, indignant UN members rose up to quash the suggestion. Jihad-genocide does not spare children.

The fact is that not one country in the Arab Middle East recognized Israel's right to exist or even agreed to negotiate with Israel until Israel began building settlements. To this day, Syria, Saudi Racist Arabia, Iran, and groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda consider Tel Aviv to be an illegal settlement.

The UN resolution claims that settlements are an obstacle to peace. This is clearly disproved by the fact that Egypt settled with Israel only after Israel began building settlements on the Sinai peninsula. The settlements did not stop Egypt from seeking negotiations, nor did they prove an obstacle to a settlement, as they were removed as part of the deal.

So you see, the facts show indisputably that the UN resolution is based on a false claim. But that never stopped a den of thieves...

[MGB8]

The Damage of the Jimmy Carter administration...

Now I understand (another reason) why Israel can't appear in front of the ICJ - this security council resolution has the force of law in front of those judges - and it defines the status of the disputed territories as "occupied."

Oh, its a BS resolution, which should have been vetoed, and it has no basis in fact, but nonetheless its a Security Council Resolution, and in the Arab-dominated, anti-Israel kangaroo court that is the UN, if controls.

Jimmy Carter is a great enemy to Israel...and what's funny is that the Islamists played a great part in getting rid of him with OPEC and the hostages.

[ibrodsky]

P.S.: To show you how unreasonable and prejudiced even many good people have become as a result of the Palestinians' Big Lie, have any of those who say they support Israel's right to exist but oppose the settlements ever even considered the Israeli perspective?

If you are constantly attacked by neighboring countries and paramilitary groups, all of whom originally said you do not have the right to exist within secure borders, and some of whom still insist you do not have the right to exist within secure borders, and none of whom want to agree on permanent borders, then why would it matter whether your people live on one side or the other of a "border" your enemies refuse to recognize?

Indeed, when Jordan and Egypt made peace with Israel they in effect recognized the West Bank and Gaza as being within Israel's jurisdiction--even though prior to 1967 those areas were part of Egypt and Jordan.

Of course, they claim to have abdicated control over these areas out of respect for the Palestinians' desire for a state of their own.

But well informed and honest people know this is a joke.

Besides the fact that the Palestinians are not seeking a state (except to the extent that it might be a stepping stone to destroying Israel), the Jordanian and Egyptian regimes realized they could not safely recognize any permanent borders, and certainly in the case of Egypt they understood that relinquishing the West Bank and Gaza was a way to get the Sinai back while keeping the war going.

[Mycroft]

Thank you for all the responses, but what I'd really like is one that addresses this specific resolution, if it’s possible.

Peacelover, my goal here isn’t to start a debate, so I don’t really want to go into weather or not settlements help or hurt the peace process. An argument can be made either way on that one.

I’m familiar with the arguments that say how the Geneva Conventions don’t apply, or that the Jewish right to settle in these lands was established by the League of Nations and has never been rescinded, and I don’t have a problem with Israel ignoring this resolution in the face of the Palestinian-Arabs ignoring so many others, and I agree that the UN is an anti-Israel organization so maybe their resolutions are not so important anyway, but I’d like to know if there is a specific argument that addresses this resolution.

[MGB8]

Well, there are a couple things you can do to respond to the resolution.

The first is that the Peace Agreements with Egypt and Jordan have changed the status of the lands. The lands can't be "occupied Arab lands" (note it does not say "Palestinian" but ARAB, refering to JORDAN and SYRIA) anymore because the former owners of the lands - Jordan & Egypt, have given up their claims to the land in signing peace agreements with Israel. This is hurt a little by the fact that the Egyptian peace occurred before the resolution - but the vagueness of the resolution could be intereted to not include Gaza, but only the WB and the Golan, the former which the peace with Jordan addresses.

This argument is fortified by the fact that it is Jordan which is referred to by the resolution. Its actually a fairly strong argument.

Also, what does "transfering its population" to the land mean? Does the unaided movement of Israeli civilians to this territory constitute transfer? What about the building roads and infrastructure? What about Arabs who flooded in from Jordan & Syria in the late 70's and early 80's - is that a different "transfer" attempting to effect the "facts on the ground".

But I think that at some point you simply challenge this resolution as outside the UN's authority, in violation of national sovereignty which the charter protects. And you challenge the legitimacy of this institution which clearly and consistently discriminates against Israel.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Thank you for all the responses, but what I'd really like is one that addresses this specific resolution, if it’s possible.

Peacelover, my goal here isn’t to start a debate, so I don’t really want to go into weather or not settlements help or hurt the peace process. An argument can be made either way on that one.

I’m familiar with the arguments that say how the Geneva Conventions don’t apply, or that the Jewish right to settle in these lands was established by the League of Nations and has never been rescinded, and I don’t have a problem with Israel ignoring this resolution in the face of the Palestinian-Arabs ignoring so many others, and I agree that the UN is an anti-Israel organization so maybe their resolutions are not so important anyway, but I’d like to know if there is a specific argument that addresses this resolution.

It's interesting that you still want to know "if there is a specific argument that addresses this resolution" when you just dismissed such arguments.

The UN resolution clearly states that it is based on:

1. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which it misapplies;

2. The assertion that the settlements constitute "a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East" which modern history shows is plainly false; and

3. Previous UN resolutions.

So why don't you just find the courage to tell us what you are really after?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by MGB8
Well, there are a couple things you can do to respond to the resolution.

The first is that the Peace Agreements with Egypt and Jordan have changed the status of the lands. The lands can't be "occupied Arab lands" (note it does not say "Palestinian" but ARAB, referring to JORDAN and SYRIA) anymore because the former owners of the lands - Jordan & Egypt, have given up their claims to the land in signing peace agreements with Israel. This is hurt a little by the fact that the Egyptian peace occurred before the resolution - but the vagueness of the resolution could be interpreted to not include Gaza, but only the WB and the Golan, the former which the peace with Jordan addresses.

I was thinking along those lines too. Both those peace treaties specify borders (I think) relinquishing control of the disputed territories to Israel, but also specify that borders should be “without prejudice” to the disputed territories. Do you think I’d have trouble with the “without prejudice” part? I’d interpret that to mean nothing more than a recognition that the final disposition of the territories hasn’t been determined yet and nobody on any side wants to sign anything that could come back to haunt them later.

I’ll have to read it again, but I think the report that goes along with that resolution only discusses settlements in the WB. If that’s true, then the peace agreement with Egypt strengthens the argument, not weakens it.

Originally posted by MGB8
This argument is fortified by the fact that it is Jordan which is referred to by the resolution. Its actually a fairly strong argument.

Also, what does "transfering its population" to the land mean? Does the unaided movement of Israeli civilians to this territory constitute transfer? What about the building roads and infrastructure? What about Arabs who flooded in from Jordan & Syria in the late 70's and early 80's - is that a different "transfer" attempting to effect the "facts on the ground".

I think I’d have problems saying “unaided” movement. Wouldn’t Israeli government subsidies constitute aid? I think I’d be safer sticking to the first argument.

Arabs flooding in from the late 70’s and early 80’s? I don’t know about that, can you point me to a resource to learn more?

Also, I seem to remember a story of Israeli troops rescuing a bunch of Arab refugees fleeing Jordan across the Jordan River. I tried to find the story later, but couldn’t. Is that from the same time period you’re talking about?

Originally posted by MGB8
But I think that at some point you simply challenge this resolution as outside the UN's authority, in violation of national sovereignty which the charter protects. And you challenge the legitimacy of this institution which clearly and consistently discriminates against Israel.

I agree there, but I think that’s a different argument. National law has a foundation in common law, legislation or a constitution, but international law is pure politics, nothing more.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
So why don't you just find the courage to tell us what you are really after?

I’m after a winning argument and a little help with my homework. Relax, I’m on your side.

[Noam]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I'm looking for some information. I've read a lot of opinions on the matter, but not many take this into account:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a7...c!OpenDocument

Can anyone shed some light on this?

ABSOLUTELY

SETTLMENTS ARE ILLEGAL

Chief SITING SHIVA is about to file in the HAGUE COURT against all the early SETTLERS in the west.

ALL SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL!

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Noam
ALL SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL!

Not all but alot.

[peacelover]

Mycroft;

LIke I say, I am not avidly for ar against settlements. MGB8 has given you the argument that they are legal, if you like, as a lawyer, I could put the counter-argument. For information's sake, and as long as nobody was going to turn round and start abusing me for it....

[ibrodsky]

Questions of "legality" in international affairs are meaningless.

Sovereign nations can decide to live by the Rule of Law. I.e., the people create laws that they are willing to be judged by. If someone violates such a law, they can be imprisoned or fined.

The idea of "legality" in dealings between nations is foolishness. An egghead who survives a terrorist attack might get up and scream "Terrorism is illegal! I'm going to sue!" but we all know how silly that person would look.

The real issue here is what is the purpose of the settlements and what are the results?

I support the settlements for several reasons--and none of them are religious.

1. If a country is attacked by surrounding countries and seizes territory in self-defense, then it is up to them to decide how to dispose of that territory. They have every right to annex it. However, they may prefer to hold onto it primarily as a way to encourage a negotiated solution. One proven way to move that process along is to start building settlements: let the country's enemies know they risk losing some or all of the land permanently.

2. The settlements are being built in the Jewish people's historic homeland. In some cases, such as Hebron, the "settlements" are actually just reconstituting communities that were driven out by murderous Arab mobs.

3. I don't accept racist claims that certain ethnic groups can't live in certain places. Jews should be free to settle on vacant land in the territories. If the Arabs truly want peace, they will accept a Jewish minority in a future Palestinian state just as Israel has an Arab minority.

4. Sorry to be politically incorrect, but I'm all for industrious and modern people settling in areas inhabited by the backward and indolent. While some horrible things were done to American Indians, I don't consider the settling of the American West to be one of them. The Indians lived as a primitive hunter-gatherer society requiring far more land than more advanced societies. Why should people be allowed to monopolize land just because they cling to a backwards lifestyle? If the Arabs were interested in improving their quality of life, they would welcome Jewish settlers with knowledge of advanced agricultural techniques and high tech.

So just say "No!" to the Arabs racist demand for a Jew-free West Bank and the longer they take to negotiate a settlement, the more territory they should lose permanently.


Of course, attacking countries just to seize and settle their land is a different matter. As is driving peaceful inhabitants off their land in order to change the ethnic character. Those things are not "illegal," but they are certainly wrong. And they are exactly what Israel's Arab neighbors have been trying to do for decades.

[MGB8]

Ibrodsky,

You have to admit that its politically very bright of the Arabs.

They know that they control the UN, by oil influence and by religious influence in terms of numbers of countries - my bet is that there are more Muslim countries (not population) than any other religious group of countries - via Africa and East Asia. Jihadi Imperialism gets some results.

With these numbers, they can create the laws, with no anti-discrimination provisions. And so they have used the UN to create "international law", allied themselves with the left which doesn't like to acknowledge that nations act in self interest and like the idea of "big, powerful"nations (which are generally democratic and respective of individual rights) being humbled by little weak nations (which are generally despotisms that have no care about individual rights...)

as for the legal aspects, its a tough argument with that resolution - the best argument you can make is what I mentioned above - that by territory from Arabs it mean Arab nations (Jordan) who had owned the territory, since it doesn't mention the Pal Arabs. This resolution is not reffered to in subsequent resolutions - it seems to be left to 242 - someone else pointed that out. In fact, its seems in contradiction to 242, which has since been re-inforced by subsequent resolutions, it has been brought back to primacy. 242 has evidence that shows that it deliberatly asked for Israel to return "territories", but NOT "all the territories." A subsequent re-affirmation of 242 would trump 446.

That's another argument, in addition to the Jordan argument.