Yep, a "settlement" is just the press and the anti-Israel crowd's way of describing a Jewish Jerusalem suburb.
Posted on 10/23/2003 2:51:26 PM PDT by anotherview
Yep, a "settlement" is just the press and the anti-Israel crowd's way of describing a Jewish Jerusalem suburb.
That's an important point. Just how the concept of "settlers" became demonized here in the USA escapes me.
It's worth noting that Israel accepted the road map with conditions. Among the conditions, Israel did not agree to halt internal expansion, which is what's happening here. Additionally, Israel's progress was conditioned on PA compliance, step by step, which hasn't occured.
Also, the confiscation of land for settlement construction is in violation of the rules contained in the 1907 Hague Regulations protecting public and private property in occupied territory.
Doesn't this settlement activity go against the concept of a “just and lasting peace” called for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242?
In Resolution 465, which was unanimously adopted, the Security Council made clear that “Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants” in the occupied territories not only violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, but also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
And what about that 25 foot high wall? What's up with that?
I am so glad you brought that up. I am sure that the more than 1,000,000 Jews who were "transferred" from Arab lands after 1948 would very interested in that International law.
I'll tell you what. When the international community wants to discuss the transfer of those Jews, we can discuss the transfer of Arabs.
No. If you want to understand Resolution 242 you need to go to the source, the authors. Here is what the British Ambassador to the U.N. at the time, Lord Caradon, has to say about it:
# Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:
"... the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution." (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)
Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:
Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"
Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary... "
In other words, there is still NO secure or recognized border between the Palestinians and Israel. The land in question is in dispute rather than occupied, and building up the existing suburbs of Jerusalem is in no way a violation of 242.
If the territory is disputed rather tan occupied Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply, and neither do the 1907 Hague Regulations.
Oh, and the last internationally recognized border for Israel was defined by the 1919 treaty between the British and the Hashemite King of Jordan and Iraq which defined the border of the future state as the Jordan River. In the absence of any subsequent binding agreement or treaty the land in question legally belongs to Israel.
And what about that 25 foot high wall?
Which one? The one between Israel and Egypt? Israel and Lebanon? Israel and Syria? How is the one being built along the Green Line any different? Oh, I know, it isn't on a border. It is internal to Israel.
Resolution 465 would be meaningful if there was some agreement as to borders. There is not.
I notice you accept the Palestinian interpretation of UN Resolutions without question. That, in and of itself, is very telling.
Yeah, it says that. But the occupying power neither deports nor transfers anyone. They move of their own volition. And besides, it's not occupied territory, it is disputed territory, because no nation declares it their own sovereign soil.
But the occupying power neither deports nor transfers anyone. They move of their own volition.Other parts of the Convention refer to "forcible transfer", which means that all transfer is not forcible. Since the Israeli government has subsidized settlements and settlers, clearly the settlements counts as "transfer" under the Convention.
-Eric
Play your word games with someone else.
"The land in question is in dispute rather than occupied"
Well, what is it? Is it legally Israels or is it in dispute? How can you post this? Are you figuring that I'll accept one or the other, whatever suits me?
"and building up the existing suburbs of Jerusalem is in no way a violation of 242."
And what about, "153 new homes will be built in the West Bank settlement of Karnei Shomron near Nablus." Nablus is now a suburb of Jerusalem?
"How is the one being built along the Green Line any different?"
It's different because it ISN'T being built along the Green Line! How can you say it is when you know for a fact that it isn't?
Your post to me is insulting. You take me for a fool? Begone prevaricator! Come back next time with the truth, and we can start from there.
There is no word game, only a lack of thought on your part.
It is the sovereignty of the land that is disputed, not the private property rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.