Posted on 05/29/2024 5:33:59 AM PDT by SJackson
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently warned Israel against cutting off Palestinian banks and spoke about the need to increase aid to Gaza, that is, Hamas, even further. Yellen’s words gained little attention, as the Biden regime’s betrayal of Israel is now old news. It is now widely known that the regime, deeply afraid that it could lose Michigan in November, has brought a seventy-year-old alliance perilously close to rupture to gain the Arab vote. Yet the betrayal of Israel didn’t begin when the polls started looking bad for Old Joe. The seeds of it were planted long before Hamas massacred 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023.
Back during the 2020 campaign, Old Joe vowed: “My administration will look like America, Muslim Americans serving at every level.” Although his career is an appalling record of seven decades of lying, this is one promise he has kept. On May 15, I wrote here at PJM about Maher Bitar, Old Joe Biden’s new special counsel and director of intelligence and defense programs at the National Security Council. Bitar is a longtime foe of Israel and an alumnus of the viciously anti-Israel campus group Students for Justice in Palestine. Bitar, however, is not even close to being the sole foe of Israel at high levels among Biden apparatchiks.
The man to whom the Biden regime has given the responsibility of being its special representative for Palestinian affairs, a particularly important post during this war, has declared: “I was inspired by the Palestinian intifada.” Hady Amr has also said that Palestinian Arabs would “never, never forget what the Israeli people, the Israeli military, and Israeli democracy have done to Palestinian children. And there will be thousands who will seek to avenge these brutal murders of innocents.” He did not, of course, say a word about Hamas’ long-established practice of launching jihad attacks from civilian areas, so that retaliatory fire could be used for propaganda purposes.
Yet despite his obvious bias, Amr has been the regime’s point man for Israeli and Palestinian issues from the beginning. Before getting his present job, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs within the State Department.
When reading about the regime’s latest accusation that Israel is violating human rights norms, it’s useful to keep in mind that the State Department’s undersecretary for civilian security, democracy, and human rights is Uzra Zeya. Zeya has “worked for the magazine Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and its publishing group, American Educational Trust. The Washington Report has questioned the loyalty American Jews have to the United States; published accusations against the ‘Jewish lobby’; claimed American Jews control the media; and accused the Mossad of perpetrating the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy and the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Bihar, Amr, and Zeya had plenty of company, but some of the Israel-haters have now departed from the regime. Most notorious among them was Robert Malley, who served as the regime’s special envoy to Iran until June 29, 2023. He is not on the Biden team at the moment because his security clearance was revoked and he was put on leave over his alleged mishandling of classified information.
Malley’s support for Iran’s Islamic regime and pronounced distaste for Israel had raised eyebrows for years. The Washington Times revealed in February 2021 that back in July 2019, “Iran’s smooth, English-speaking foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, met with Robert Malley, who was President Obama’s Middle East adviser, in an apparent bid to undermine the Trump team and lay the groundwork for post-Trump relations.”
Malley has made clear for years that he was hardly an unbiased mediator. An Israeli security official noted in February 2008 that Malley “has expressed sympathy to Hamas and Hizbullah and offered accounts of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that don’t jibe with the facts.” Obama dropped Malley in May 2008 after it came to light that he had met with representatives of Hamas, but six months later sent him as an envoy to Egypt and Syria.
Also now departed, as of July 28, 2023, is the former Biden regime Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman. Before her work with her Bidenite comrades, Sherman was the lead negotiator of Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Then there was Reema Dodin, who, until her resignation on June 16, 2023, was a deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. According to the Jerusalem Post, “during the Second Intifada, in 2002, Dodin spoke about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with residents of Lodi, Calif., saying that ‘suicide bombers were the last resort of a desperate people.’” Also, “in 2001, Dodin took part in a demonstration at UC Berkeley calling for the university to divest from Israel….The demonstrators compared Israel to apartheid South Africa.”
Colin Kahl was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy until July 17, 2023. Like the others, Kahl had “quite the anti-Israel record. He thinks the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq was 1981 was a mistake. In 2012, he acted to remove the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital from the Democratic Party’s platform. In 2015, he was among those to formulate the Iran nuclear deal. In 2016, at the end of his term, then-US President Barack Obama tasked him with enlisting support for the anti-Israel UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that determined Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria were a violation of international law.”
It’s quite a rogue’s gallery of hacks, ideologues, and jihad enablers. With so many of them still in place, the only surprise is that the Biden regime didn’t betray Israel even sooner.
Related threads
U.S. Military Pier Temporarily Removed from Gaza Coast for Repairs
Knesset advances bill to commemorate Iraq’s Farhud pogrom. (Arab-Nazi atrocities June/1941)
Israel refuses to support Spain against Catalan independence
bkmk
BHO, one of Biden’s handlers, has always hated Israel so this was to be expected.
And, he can’t cope with the fact the game he is continuing to try to play has been over for several years.
President Trump started a new game in which Obama is not a player
And we can put absolutely nothing past the evil ones in stopping DJT.
“Also now departed, as of July 28, 2023, is the former Biden regime Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman. Before her work with her Bidenite comrades, Sherman was the lead negotiator of Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
This is where everyone, even Spencer, misses the point.
The Iran deal wasn’t Obama, it was all Joe Biden!
He’s been promoting Iran and selling us out to Iran for decades and I promise you it’s because he owes them for something!!
Joe Biden’s jaded romance with Iran
In fact, years before Barack Obama ran for president on a platform that included reaching out to adversaries like Iran, Biden was calling for engagement with the Middle Eastern nation, meeting with its top diplomats and even flirting with a visit. At one point, a critic derided him as “Tehran’s favorite senator.”
My, my!!!
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/09/joe-biden-relationship-iran-485786
Biden has always been a grifter with no morals, who will do anything for money and power. Exactly the sort who succeed in Washington.
President Retard refused to speak to Bibi for quite a while after the election flat out blew him off. I pointed it out numerous times. The Jew hating began from the get go
Democrats in general betray everyone. I just saw a interview on youtube with Richard Nixon (Richard Nixon Foundation) about the Bay of Pigs disaster and he said that JFK cancelled 2 needed air strikes (that let the commies defeat the good guys). JFK in a meeting with Nixon blamed everyone else. He also authorized 50,000 troops to Vietnam.
Recent betrayals are Benghazi, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel. The democrats always undermine good and supports evil.
If Camelis electedbecomes President, all aid will be cut off to Israel and probably the Embassy will be moved back to Tel Aviv or closed altogether in favor of a new embassy in "Palestine."
It could get a lot worse than that. Officially, Israel has been unlawfully occupying Palestinian territory since 1967. 143 states have formally recognized Palestine as a state. The only thing that stands in the way of UN condemnation and Security Council authorization of military force is a United States veto. The United States could inflict major damage on Israel by doing nothing... just abstain.
In March, the US abstained allowing a vote to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Israel threw a hissy fit.
“In March, the US abstained allowing a vote to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Israel threw a hissy fit.”
hissy fit? lol........... keep dreaming lefty.
BTW, how is that “immediate ceasefire” doing 4 months later? lol.
I know you’ll respond by pasting a bunch of spam and giving links to the UN but it doesn’t change the reality on the ground.
Shalom from ISRAEL!!!!!
There is nothing “unlawfully” about it. War is war and involves the taking and holding of territory and doing what is necessary to protect ones population. By the same token the Moslem incursions are not unlawful except as to the laws of the area whence they come and the laws of the land they invade. But even there it is war and the Law is irrelevant. There is no International Law. What is called that is wishful thinking and agreements that are as solid as the pieces of paper they are written on or the deletable digits they are recorded on.
But even there it is war and the Law is irrelevant. There is no International Law. What is called that is wishful thinking and agreements that are as solid as the pieces of paper they are written on or the deletable digits they are recorded on.
The United States Constitution explicitly recognizes the authority of international law in reference to international relations.
U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 10:
[The Congress shall have the Power] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
law of nations. See INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The Law of Nations is nothing but the archaic term for International Law. International Law contains no exemptions for Zionists to commit genocide, land grabs, or ethnic cleansing.
You are reminded that Israel owes its entire existence to acts of the League of Nations/United Nations. If there is no international law, the entire existence of Israel is without support.
In a deal made during WW1, the Palestinian Territory was promised to the Arabs if they would stage an Arab uprising against the Ottoman empire. Thus, it was the Arabs who took up arms and fought to liberate the territory from the Ottoman Empire. While the Arabs were so occupied, the British went sort of bankrupt and Lord Balfour brokered a deal with Zionist Lord Rothschild, promising the same land to Zionists in return for whatever it was that the richest banking family in the world could provide.
There is nothing “unlawfully” about it.
It has been blatantly, in your face, unlawful, and so held. Your attempted repudiation of international law makes clear your knowledge that the actions are blatantly unlawful.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Summary 2024/8
19 July 2024
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024
Chronology of the procedure (paras 1-21)
The Court first recalls that on 19 January 2023, the Secretary-General of the United Nations officially communicated to the Court the decision taken by the General Assembly to submit the questions set forth in resolution 77/247 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (hereinafter the “General Assembly”) on 30 December 2022.
Paragraph 18 of the resolution reads as follows:
“The General Assembly,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18. Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to render an advisory opinion on the following questions, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and the advisory opinion of the Court of 9 July 2004:
(a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?
(b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?”
[...]
II. GENERAL CONTEXT (PARAS. 51-71)
Before turning to the scope and meaning of the questions put to it by the General Assembly, the Court recalls the general context.
Having been part of the Ottoman Empire, at the end of the First World War, Palestine was placed under a Mandate that was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations. In 1947, the United Kingdom announced its intention to complete its evacuation of the mandated territory by 1 August 1948, subsequently advancing that date to 15 May 1948. In the meantime, on 29 November 1947, the General Assembly had adopted resolution 181 (II) on the future government of Palestine, which “[r]ecommend[ed] to the United Kingdom . . . and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation . . . of the Plan of Partition” of the territory, as set forth in the resolution, between two independent States, one Arab, the other Jewish, as well as the creation of a special international régime for the City of Jerusalem. While the Jewish population accepted the Plan of Partition, the Arab population of Palestine and the Arab States rejected this plan, contending, inter alia, that it was unbalanced.
On 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence with reference to the General Assembly resolution 181 (II); an armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States, and the Plan of Partition was not implemented. By resolution 62 (1948) of 16 November 1948, the Security Council decided that “an armistice shall be established in all sectors of Palestine”. In conformity with this decision, general armistice agreements were concluded in 1949 in Rhodes between Israel and its neighbouring States through mediation by the United Nations, fixing the armistice demarcation lines between Israeli and Arab forces (often later collectively called the “Green Line” owing to the colour used for it on maps).
On 29 November 1948, referring to resolution 181 (II), Israel applied for admission to membership of the United Nations. On 11 May 1949, when it admitted Israel as a Member State of the United Nations, the General Assembly recalled resolution 181 (II) and took note of Israel’s declarations “in respect of the implementation of the said resolution” (General Assembly resolution 273 (III)).
In 1967, an armed conflict (also known as the “Six-Day War”) broke out between Israel and neighbouring countries Egypt, Syria and Jordan. By the time hostilities had ceased, Israeli forces occupied all the territories of Palestine under British Mandate beyond the Green Line.
On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which “emphasiz[ed] the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” and called for the “[w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”.
From 1967 onwards, Israel started to establish or support settlements in the territories it occupied and took a number of measures aimed at changing the status of the City of Jerusalem.
The Security Council, after recalling on a number of occasions “the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, condemned those measures and, by resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, confirmed that “all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status”.
In October 1973, another armed conflict broke out between Egypt, Syria and Israel. By resolution 338 of 22 October 1973, the Security Council called upon the parties to the conflict to terminate all military activity and to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts.
On 14 October 1974, the General Assembly recognized, by resolution 3210 (XXIX), the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinian people. By resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, it recognized “that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”.
On 17 September 1978, Israel and Egypt signed the “Camp David Accords”, which led in the following year to a Peace Treaty between the two countries. Later, a peace treaty was signed on 26 October 1994 between Israel and Jordan. That treaty fixed the boundary between the two States according to the lines set under the Mandate for Palestine.
On 15 November 1988, referring to resolution 181 (II) “which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State”, the PLO “proclaim[ed] the establishment of the State of Palestine”. In 1993 and 1995, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo I and Oslo II Accords. In an exchange of letters on 9 September 1993, the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, and Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The Oslo I Accord established general guidelines for the negotiations to be conducted between Israel and Palestine. The Oslo II Accord, inter alia, divided the Israeli-occupied West Bank into three administrative areas (A, B and C) with Area C, which covers more than 60 per cent of the West Bank, being exclusively administered by Israel.
The Oslo Accords required Israel to, inter alia, transfer to Palestinian authorities certain powers and responsibilities exercised in Areas A and B of the West Bank by its military authorities and civil administration. Where such transfers, which have remained limited and partial, have taken place, Israel has retained significant control in relation to security matters.
Following an increase in acts of violence from the West Bank, in the early 2000s Israel began building a “continuous fence” (hereinafter the “wall”) largely in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A plan of this type was approved for the first time by the Israeli Government in July 2001 and the first part of the relevant works was declared completed on 31 July 2003. Notwithstanding the Court’s opinion in 2004, finding “[t]he construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime [to be] contrary to international law”, the construction of the wall continued, as well as the expansion of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Reports indicate that, by 2005, settlers who had been residing in 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and in four settlements in the northern West Bank, were evacuated pursuant to an Israeli “Disengagement Plan”. By 2023, approximately 465,000 settlers resided in the West Bank, spread across around 300 settlements and outposts, while some 230,000 settlers resided in East Jerusalem. The residents of settlements and “outposts” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (“settlers”) are predominantly Israelis, as well as non-Israeli Jews who qualify for Israeli nationality under Israeli legislation.
On 29 November 2012, the General Assembly, recalling, inter alia, resolution 181 (II), accorded to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations (resolution 67/19). In 2016, the Security Council adopted resolution 2334 (2016) in which it urged “the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967”.
On 10 May 2024, the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/23 in which it “[d]etermines that the State of Palestine is qualified for membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations and should therefore be admitted to membership in the United Nations”. On 10 June 2024, the Security Council adopted resolution 2735 (2024), whereby it reiterated “its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresse[d] the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority”.
Following an increase in acts of violence from the West Bank, in the early 2000s Israel began building a “continuous fence” (hereinafter the “wall”) largely in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A plan of this type was approved for the first time by the Israeli Government in July 2001 and the first part of the relevant works was declared completed on 31 July 2003. Notwithstanding the Court’s opinion in 2004, finding “[t]he construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime [to be] contrary to international law”, the construction of the wall continued, as well as the expansion of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Reports indicate that, by 2005, settlers who had been residing in 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and in four settlements in the northern West Bank, were evacuated pursuant to an Israeli “Disengagement Plan”. By 2023, approximately 465,000 settlers resided in the West Bank, spread across around 300 settlements and outposts, while some 230,000 settlers resided in East Jerusalem. The residents of settlements and “outposts” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (“settlers”) are predominantly Israelis, as well as non-Israeli Jews who qualify for Israeli nationality under Israeli legislation.
On 29 November 2012, the General Assembly, recalling, inter alia, resolution 181 (II), accorded to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations (resolution 67/19).
In 2016, the Security Council adopted resolution 2334 (2016) in which it urged “the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967”.
On 10 May 2024, the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/23 in which it “[d]etermines that the State of Palestine is qualified for membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations and should therefore be admitted to membership in the United Nations”.
On 10 June 2024, the Security Council adopted resolution 2735 (2024), whereby it reiterated “its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresse[d] the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority”.
[...]
8. Conclusion on Israel’s settlement policy (paras. 155-156) In light of the above, the Court reaffirms (see Wall Advisory Opinion) that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the régime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law. The Court notes with grave concern reports that Israel’s settlement policy has been expanding since the Court’s Wall Advisory Opinion.
[...]
Having found that Israel’s settlement policy, its acts of annexation, and its related discriminatory legislation and measures are in breach of international law, the Court turns to the aspect of question (a) that enquires as to the effects of Israel’s policies and practices on the exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. The Court has already affirmed, in its Wall opinion the existence of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. In the present proceedings, the Court first determines the scope of this right and then examines the effects, if any, that Israel’s policies and practices have on its exercise.
In light of its analysis, the Court is of the view that the prolonged character of Israel’s unlawful policies and practices aggravates their violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. As a consequence of Israel’s policies and practices, which span decades, the Palestinian people has been deprived of its right to self-determination over a long period, and further prolongation of these policies and practices undermines the exercise of this right in the future. For these reasons, the Court is of the view that Israel’s unlawful policies and practices are in breach of Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The manner in which these policies affect the legal status of the occupation, and thereby the legality of the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, is discussed later in the advisory opinion.
[...]
The Court is of the view that Israel’s assertion of sovereignty and its annexation of certain parts of the territory constitute a violation of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force. This violation has a direct impact on the legality of Israel’s continued presence, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court considers that Israel is not entitled to sovereignty over or to exercise sovereign powers in any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory on account of its occupation. Nor can Israel’s security concerns override the principle of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force.
The Court further observes that the effects of Israel’s policies and practices discussed earlier, and its exercise of sovereignty over certain parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the West Bank and East Jerusalem, constitute an obstruction to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination. The effects of these policies and practices include Israel’s annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the fragmentation of this territory, undermining its integrity, the deprivation of the Palestinian people of the enjoyment of the natural resources of the territory and its impairment of the Palestinian people’s right to pursue its economic, social and cultural development.
The above-described effects of Israel’s policies and practices, resulting, inter alia, in the prolonged deprivation of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, constitute a breach of this fundamental right. This breach has a direct impact on the legality of Israel’s presence, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court is of the view that occupation cannot be used in such a manner as to leave indefinitely the occupied population in a state of suspension and uncertainty, denying them their right to self-determination while integrating parts of their territory into the occupying Power’s own territory. The Court considers that the existence of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination cannot be subject to conditions on the part of the occupying Power, in view of its character as an inalienable right.
In light of the foregoing, the Court turns to the examination of the legality of the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
[...]
The Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.
This illegality relates to the entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967. This is the territorial unit across which Israel has imposed policies and practices to fragment and frustrate the ability of the Palestinian people to exercise its right to self-determination, and over large swathes of which it has extended Israeli sovereignty in violation of international law. The entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is also the territory in relation to which the Palestinian people should be able to exercise its right to self-determination, the integrity of which must be respected.
Responding to an argument made by three participants, the Court observes that the Oslo Accords do not permit Israel to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory in order to meet its security needs. Nor do they authorize Israel to maintain a permanent presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for such security needs.
The Court emphasizes that the conclusion that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal does not release it from its obligations and responsibilities under international law, particularly the law of occupation, towards the Palestinian population and towards other States in respect of the exercise of its powers in relation to the territory until such time as its presence is brought to an end. It is the effective control of a territory, regardless of its legal status under international law, which determines the basis of the responsibility of a State for its acts affecting the population of the territory or other States.
[...]
With regard to the Court’s finding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, the Court considers that such presence constitutes a wrongful act entailing its international responsibility. It is a wrongful act of a continuing character which has been brought about by Israel’s violations, through its policies and practices, of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Consequently, Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible.
The Court further observes that, with respect to the policies and practices of Israel referred to in question (a) which were found to be unlawful, Israel has an obligation to put an end to those unlawful acts. In this respect, Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activity. Israel also has an obligation to repeal all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation, including those which discriminate against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as all measures aimed at modifying the demographic composition of any parts of the territory.
Israel is also under an obligation to provide full reparation for the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts to all natural or legal persons concerned. Reparation includes restitution, compensation and/or satisfaction.
Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property, as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions, including archives and documents. It also requires the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence.
In the event that such restitution should prove to be materially impossible, Israel has an obligation to compensate, in accordance with the applicable rules of international law, all natural or legal persons, and populations, where that may be the case, having suffered any form of material damage as a result of Israel’s wrongful acts under the occupation. The Court emphasizes that the obligations flowing from Israel’s internationally wrongful acts do not release it from its continuing duty to perform the international obligations which its conduct is in breach of. Specifically, Israel remains bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
[...]
The Court then turns to the legal consequences of Israel’s internationally wrongful acts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as regards other States. The Court observes that the obligations violated by Israel include certain obligations erga omnes, among which are the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self determination and the obligation arising from the prohibition of the use of force to acquire territory as well as certain of its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. With regard to the right to self-determination, the Court considers that, while it is for the General Assembly and the Security Council to pronounce on the modalities required to ensure an end to Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the full realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, all States must co-operate with the United Nations to put those modalities into effect. As regards the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force, taking note of the resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, the Court is of the view that Member States are under an obligation not to recognize any changes in the physical character or demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the territory occupied by Israel on 5 June 1967, including East Jerusalem, except as agreed by the parties to the conflict through negotiations and to distinguish in their dealings with Israel between the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.
Moreover, the Court considers that, in view of the character and importance of the rights and obligations involved, all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It is for all States, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure that any impediment resulting from the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have the obligation, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.
[...]
The duty of non-recognition specified earlier also applies to international organizations, including the United Nations, in view of the serious breaches of obligations erga omnes under international law. The obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the obligation to distinguish in dealings with Israel between the territory of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory apply also to the United Nations.
Finally, the Court is of the view that the precise modalities to bring to an end Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is a matter to be dealt with by the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, as well as the Security Council. Therefore, it is for the General Assembly and the Security Council to consider what further action is required to put an end to the illegal presence of Israel, taking into account the present Advisory Opinion.
The Court considers it important to stress, as it did in its Wall Advisory Opinion, “the urgent necessity for the United Nations as a whole to redouble its efforts to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which continues to pose a threat to international peace and security, to a speedy conclusion, thereby establishing a just and lasting peace in the region”.
The Court also considers that the realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign State, living side by side in peace with the State of Israel within secure and recognized borders for both States, as envisaged in resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, would contribute to regional stability and the security of all States in the Middle East.
The Court emphasizes that its reply to the questions put to it by the General Assembly rests on the totality of the legal grounds set forth by the Court above, each of which is to be read in the light of the others, taking into account the framing by the Court of the material, territorial and temporal scope of the questions.
Shalom from ISRAEL!!!!!
Shalom from THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!
You've got the magic touch
You thrill my mind so much
With every word you drop
Oh Jaysin, please don't stop
Cause you have got — the magic touch.
The moil, he did bris
And now there's only this
Just barely missed your nuts
Got nearly all your putz
Cause he didn't have — the magic touch.
Now, even with the touch
Two inches isn't much
But Jaysin don't be miffed
If life gave you short shrift
Cause only you — have got the gift
well no i dont have the biggest wiener out there unfortunately. I could use a couple of extra inches — but like I tell my wife—it’s not the size of the wand that matters but the magic that it does.
Fail. Does not rhyme.
When did you recite Shaheed?
The full text of the final paragraph (para. 285) reads as follows:For these reasons,
THE COURT,
(1) Unanimously,
Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested;
(2) By fourteen votes to one,
Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;
(3) By eleven votes to four,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Aurescu;
(4) By eleven votes to four,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Aurescu;
(5) By fourteen votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;
(6) By fourteen votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;
(7) By twelve votes to three,
Is of the opinion that all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Abraham, Aurescu;
(8) By twelve votes to three,
Is of the opinion that international organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Abraham, Aurescu;
(9) By twelve votes to three,
Is of the opinion that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Abraham, Aurescu.
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.