IDF soldiers detain five-year-old Palestinian for stone-throwing in Hebron

I thought so too and was waiting for you to edit it but, seems I will have to respond to it anyhow so here goes;

Well then, let's apply it to your standard then;

If I wish to move in with my girlfriend in one of the settlements and pay for a moving van out of my own earnings and move, is the government 'transferring' or 'deporting' me? If a fish farm in the one of the settlements is paying big bucks for a person with my skill to go there to ply my trade, if I chose to move is the government 'transferring' or 'deporting' me or am I moving there voluntarily?

Strange, as proof you cite article 49 yet it has been clearly shown not to apply. Please supply justification for them being illegal. As for the US being 'my ally,' how on earth do you know who is and who is not my ally? Are they not your ally or are they neutral or your enemy?

Daft spin like your factless above post and ..... Annex? When on earth did all the occupied territories get annexed?????? Didn't you hear, 242 stated that land won in war cannot not to be kept.

 

I need no more proof of settlement illegality than the many UN Resolutions condemning their building and America's unequivocal statement to that effect. I suggest that both the UN and American legal experts are far more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I. Therefore I prefer to accept their opinion as opposed to an anonymous Israeli apologist on an internet forum. That latter would be you.

 

I would say with certainty that they are far more knowledgeable as well just as the Israeli legal experts are without doubt more knowledgeable than they as this is their home turf and argument with which they have intimate knowledge far more than they and certainly far more than an terrorist organization apologist on an internet forum.

As for the people and organizations you cite, they used the same Article you cannot substantiate or support as basis for their 'OPINION.' You will note the resolutions you speak of are not binding as that would actually require a court to find the settlements illegal rather than the opinion of nations and bodies believing them to be. And that my dear Snakestretcher would require that they prove that they are illegal and, allow Israel to explain her side and version of reality woth rebuttals to all supercilious contentions which they have not had the opportunity to do in front of an authorized determining body.

Now, as I asked earlier, "Please supply justification for them being illegal"

 

Resol. 242 - 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 . . . "

 

So the UN doesn't even know who's territory is being occupied yet know that it is illegal?

Good golly

 

"Defensive war" is an outdated concept which is legally almost empty.
Was it a "preventive war" or a "pre-emptive war".
What tests did you apply to decide?
Was it therefore legal?

 

You called it a "defensive war" in post #216 so enlighten us as to it's meaning please.

 

No I didn't. Read it again. [Remember Erskine Childers' advice?]

FACT: I wrote that Zionists call it a "defensive war".

When in doubt - go Wiki ....... for an outdated concept - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_war

 

Oh , do they? Very nice, now, clarify your own question as you are the one who brought it up.

 

Noooo!! That is being a slacker.

If I do everything for you, you will never learn how to fish.

So, was it legal?

 

Na, not laziness, more like a complete lack of interest on my part. 'Scuse me, have to hurry up and slowly walk downtown to watch some paint dry.

 

The highest intl court in our world has held the settlements are unlawful. CASE CLOSED.

 

Please cite the ruling to determine if all sides were permitted to present evidence as is proper when a court rules. If it has not then the determination is as invalid as claiming the invasion of Iraq was illegal - simple bloviating.

 

"120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Convention and:"to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979).The Council reaffirmed its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention.The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law." http://www.israellawresourcecenter....3/studyguides/icj2003sgisraelisettlements.htm

 

In the 2004 Court ruling on The Wall, the highest international legal authority in our world made a finding that the illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are unlawful under intl law. Who participated in the court proceedings and who did not is quiet irrelevant. This is a legal question answered by the highest legal authority.

 

Err no, it is an assumption made while dealing with another matter/ Now, please rise above the others and actually present the court case where evidence from al sides has been heard and an independent body who is authorized to make such decisions has ruled the settlements illegal.

In any case, it is obvious it matters little as nobody feels there there is enough justification to make a binding resolution anyhow so, let's just call it what it is - bloviating.

 

What I call the legal finding by the highest court in our world that the Jewish settlements in the OPT are unlawful is a legal finding that dispositively addresses the question of the illegality of the settlements. The settlements are unlawful, that is established fact.

 

No, the opinions are that they are as there has yet to be a specific ruling in an actual valid court case where evidence is heard from all parties that finds them as such. You will note that your evidence is 'advisory' and is used only when pertaining to other matters to enable those other matters to be dealt with.

And, as I stated, it matters naught anyhow as even those who's opinions are given know they can't make a binding resolution using 'advice' and 'opinion.' On the plus side, at east it got the Palestinians away from this 'time is on our side' mentality.

 

We have a legal finding by the highest legal authority that the settlements are unlawful under intl law. There is nothing left to be resolved, the highest court has spoken on this issue.

 

No. We have you saying that they view and advise it as such. In other words, it has not withstood any contest in any court and is meaningless except as a trite parrot point

Which is why it has never been used as the basis for a binding resolution

 

We do not need another court Opinion to confirm the very same Courts prior Opinion is valid. The Opinion stands as an answer to the legal question of whether the settlements are lawful. The Court has held the Jewish settlements in the OPT that includes East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are unlawful under intl law.

 

You're right, you don't need another as that one would also be just as ineffectual if it were attempted to be applied for any purpose other placating hand wringing terrorist sympathizes

 

You are evidently unfamiliar with how laws are formulated. A law is not presented to a jury in a courtroom for them to determine its legality. Laws are written; if those who represent the law determine that it has been violated then I suggest that they are probably more informed on its wording and interpretation than you or I.
The settlements are clearly illegal according to international law, the Geneva Conventions and those of the United Nations of which organisation Israel is a member, and thus bound to uphold and obey all its laws and regulations.
Naturally if Israel finds these laws unpalatable it is free to resign its membership-for which, no doubt, the sighs of relief would be heard around the world.

 

It is always asserted that the legal character of the State of Israel in Judea, Samaria is that of a belligerent occupation in the sense of the 1907 Hague Convention IV and 1949 Geneva Convention IV… ISRAEL HAS ALWAYS DENIED THIS CHARACTERIZATION.

The situation envisaged by The Hague and Geneva Conventions, was one in which a state temporarily occupied the sovereign territory of an enemy state. It was assumed that the war would be decided one way or the other and that the area in question would either be annexed or returned to the original owner state. However, the classic model of belligerent occupation envisaged by The Hague and Geneva Conventions does not fit in the fact pattern of its stipulations.

(1) Judea and Samaria were never and are not at this stage sovereign territory of any one country on this earth.
(2) Judea and Samaria are an integral part of the “Palestine Mandate” within which a Jewish National home was/is to be RECONSTITUTED.

One of the foremost < legal scholars > former Under-Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, describes these lands as the <unallocated parts of the British Mandate>, not under the Nationality of Israel or anyone else, but still governed by the original provisions contained in the Mandated sanctioned by the League of Nations. One of these provisions ARTICLE VI, allowed &#8220;close settlement&#8221; of all western Palestine by the Jewish People. This reasoning as enunciated by Rostow, let U.S. Pres. Ronald Reagan to declare that Israel&#8217;s settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza NOT Illegal. The settlements in these areas are the physical link of the people of Israel with the Land of Israel, a link that stretches back to the Bible and was accorded International recognition in the &#8220;PREAMBLE&#8221; of the Mandate for Palestine in 1922.

The traditional customary law and the conventional law of Geneva and The Hague looked upon belligerent occupation as temporary, pending the prompt conclusion of war and negotiation of peace. (The occupiers of this area &#8220;Jordan,&#8221; have already signed a peace treaty with Israel.)

Many of the provisions prohibiting changes to the institutions and social arrangements of the areas in question were designed to protect the population from frequent radical changes in their life.

Meanwhile, Israel, while denying the strict applicability of the 1907 and 1949 Geneva Convention, applies their basic principles as guidelines to what has been an extremely positive and humane government. ART 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention provides that, &#8220;The power in charge shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the area under its control.&#8221; To clarify the latest statement, the inhabitants of the settlements are not &#8220;deported&#8221; or &#8220;transferred&#8221;. Their choice of emigration is private and free, often based on religious grounds, and as often done against Israeli Government resistance.

Moreover, this neighborly emigration does not constitute and unnatural intrusion of people with no roots in the area. Generally speaking, all of Judea and Samaria were/are considered homeland by Jews&#8230;! There are good reasons for them to settle there. Many areas, around Hebron were inhabited by significant Jewish settlements [Kyriat Arba&#8217;a and Gush Etzion] long before 1948 because of the profound religious significance to Jews. The fact that the children and grandchildren of people wiped out or displaced by the Arabs in the massacres of Jews and the destruction of their earlier settlements 1929 and 1936 have returned to restore the homes of their forefathers is significant...!

If these Jews are willing to live in peace and cooperation with their Arab neighbors, there is no bar in international law or justice to deny them their action.

 

That is correct, I am surprised you did not know this prior to our discussion.

I would as well and certainly more aware of it's impact than a terrorist apologist on an internet forum which is why it is strange that since nobody is breaking the actual law which states that populations may not be relocated or forced to move that it is being stated it is being broken.

Clearly? When was the case determining this heard, where is the testimony of all those poor Israeli settlers forced to be relocated into the territories and what was the input of the Israeli delegation and what were the point and counter points?

As one who knows this so 'clearly' please impart your vast knowledge and factual back up of this.

Actually, it is the terrorist sympathizers who have a problem with international law as they continue their terrorism rather than make peace according to the law of the UN as Israel is quite content it seems to just watch them make non binding resolutions because the lack the legal power to make binding resolutions as that would require hearing all sides on this particular matter which is something that has never been done wouldn't it?