Pure Zionism by the right in Israel

Lavi's report, the governmental report, is contradicting those ruling.
Are you saying that the Israeli governement needs to ignore their own reports?

 

are you saying the Israeli govt. should ignore the Supreme Court?

that would be Fascism.

 

I never said that.
I said that Lavi's report, the governmental report, is contradicting those ruling.
Are you saying that the Israeli governement needs to ignore their own reports?

 

Adopting Levi report would go against decades of Supreme Court ruling that West Bank is occupied. A non binding report by one former Supreme Court judge doesn't carry the same weight as decades of Supreme Court ruling for decades that Israel occupies the West Bank.

 

who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) what a silly biased report has to say about a legally binding Supreme Court ruling??

Is Israel a democracy, or a Fascist state?

 

So are you saying that the Israei government needs to ignore governmental report?

 

hey, YOU keep saying Israel should ignore their Supreme Court.

 

I never said that.
I said that Lavi's report, the governmental report, is contradicting those ruling.
Are you saying that the Israeli governement needs to ignore their own reports?

 

so you're saying a biased non-legally binding report, has more weight than a Supreme Court decision?????????????

lol!!!!!!

 

The Supreme Court has ruled for decades that Israel is an occupying power in the West Bank. Levy report says that Israel is not an occupying power. You can't say you respect Israeli Supreme Court if you support Levy report. The makeup of the committee is all right wing Israelis. Before becoming Supreme Court judge Edmund Levy was deputy mayor of Ramle for Likud and was only judge to oppose Gaza disengagement. Another member Alan Bakar was resides in the settlement of Har Adar. The third member is Tchia Shapira; daughter of former Chief rabbi Shlomo Goren who has halakhically forbidden to dismantle any settlements and ordered any soldier to refuse if ordered to dismantle settlements. The Levy report goes against Sasson report which called for prosecuting officials responsible for assisting illegal outpost . The Levy report called for outposts to be legalized. In contrast Sasson report stated
"The Minister of Defense shall be instructed to examine all destruction orders valid today. He shall be instructed to execute all valid destruction orders, and to coordinate the implementation of existing delimiting orders."
and noted
" An unauthorized outpost is a settlement which does not fulfill at least one of the abovementioned conditions. And I must emphasize: an unauthorized outpost is not a “semi legal” outpost. Unauthorized is illegal. I mean that if the outpost were authorized, according to the conditions mentioned above, it was legal. Missing an authorization of the kinds mentioned above makes it illegal.

After studying all Government resolutions, Minister Security Committee meetings, Settlement Minister Committee meetings, whether named as so, or operating as sub-committees for settlements of Minister Security Committee – I have not found a single government or committee resolution, since the beginning of the nineties, to establish a new settlement in the territories, or to expand a neighborhood of an existing settlement.

Since many outposts were established in the Judea, Samaria and Gaza territories, it seems that it was not the result of government decision.



The Characteristics of an Unauthorized Outpost:

A. There was no government decision to establish it, and in any case no authorized political echelon approved its establishment.

B. The outpost was established with no legal planning status. Meaning, with no valid detailed plan governing the area it was established upon, which can support a building permit.

C. An unauthorized outpost is not attached to an existing settlement, but rather at least a few hundred meters distant from it as the crow flies.

D. The outpost was established in the nineties, mostly from the mid nineties and on."
A permanent forum shall be established for discussion, follow-up and supervision of the execution of destruction orders, headed by the Head of the Civil Administration."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_Report
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisra... unauthorized outposts - talya sason adv.aspx

In addition to Israelis like Sasson criticizing it. 40 American Jewish leaders and philanthropist condemned Levy report.
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/US-Jews-slam-Levy-report-on-legalizing-outposts

 

I never said that.
I said that Lavi's report, the governmental report, is contradicting those ruling.
Are you saying that the Israeli governement needs to ignore their own reports?

 

So are you saying that the Israeli government needs to ignore governmantal report?

Do you know that Bibi, the Likud's chairman, supported the disangegment. You know that, right?

 

its not legally binding.

the Elon Moreh Supreme Court decision, is.

do you know the difference?

 

So are you saying that the Israeli government needs to ignore governmantal report?

I already showed you numerous of times what Elon Moreh is saying about Judea and Samaria (or as you like to call them "The West Bank").
Once again:
The only time that Judea and Samaria was written together with "occupied territories" was here:

And after this the words "occupation" and "annaxation" is regarding Jordan:

Then there is reference from the Court to the person letter (the same letter that you talking about). But they refer it to the private land and the Court didnt deny what the person said about the ownership of the Land of Israel:

You can see that the Court didnt deny what the person said about the ownership about the Land of Israel, but they refered it to the private property. which is refering to the private land that Elon Moreh was existed on.

And to rainforce the Court claim about "denying the private property of those who are not allies" the judge qouted from Leviticus.
And if that's not satisfying you, there's also this:

Also in this part you can see that the Court isnt denying what the person said about the ownership of the Land of Israel, and they just rainforced it by recalling the Mandate. The Court did say that the civil rights need to be respected! Which means by regarding the "civil rights" they talking about the land that Elon Moreh was existed on.

Source: http://www.hamoked.org/files/2010/1670_eng.pdf

 

which is legally binding, the Levi Report or the Elon Moreh Supreme Court decision?

yeah, they said Judea & Samaria is governed by international law especially the 1907 Hague Regulations, which states "no private land may be confiscated".

 

Levi report needs to be respected.
The Elon Moreh decision was already implemented, thus it was already been fulfilled.

Elon Moreh decision isnt specified Judea and Samaria as "occupied territory", as I already showed you.
According to the British law, which is part of the local laws in the West Bank, confiscating lands is acceptable. As I already showed here.

 

It's not legally binding and government can and should ignore Levy report. You also don't seem to mind ignoring the Sasson report which recommended criminal prosecution for officials involved in supporting illegal outpost. Or ignoring Sasson report calling for all valid demolition orders to be implemented and on a forum set up for discussion and follow up on demolition orders(in contrast Levy report contradicts that by calling for outposts to be legalized even though some are on private Palestinian property). The Levy report also says Israel is not occupying the West Bank. This goes against decades of Supreme Court ruling its occupied. If you support Levy report you aren't respecting the court because of that and for legalizing outposts when some of them are on Palestinian private property which since 1979 construction for settlements is suppose to not be on Palestinian private property. I know he voted for disengagement on the basis of expecting referendum on it but resigned when Sharon didn't put it up to a referendum.

 

If you are saying that the Israeli government needs to ignore it's own reports, then you are supporting chaos.

When people is breaking the law the police is investigating,

You also ignore that I already stated that illegal outposts, so they need to be evecuated. Like illegal Arab building is need to be evecuated.

It doesnt contradict that this governmantal report stated according to international law, that Israel is not occupying the West Bank.

I'm respecting the Israeli Supreme Court. But it doesnt contradcit the fact that Levi's report is contradicting (according to international law) the courts decisions that say that the West Bank is "occupied" and the settlements are "illegal".

It doesnt change the fact that the Likud voted for the disangegment, thus your excuse of "right-wing" and the linking you did with Admund Levi and Likud regarding the disangegment.

 

according to the 1907 Hague Regulations, it is illegal for an occupying army to confiscate private land.

are you saying Israel should ignore international law?

- - - Updated - - -

The Elon Moreh decision 100% classified Judea & Samaria as being under the control of the 1907 Hague Regulations, which governs occupied territory.

 

No. I'm saying that the local laws such as the British laws, are mentioned that confiscating land is acceptable. As I showed.
I also showed here numerous of times that the West Bank is not "occupied".

Not according to the acutall ruling. Once again:
The only time that Judea and Samaria was written together with "occupied territories" was here:

And after this the words "occupation" and "annaxation" is regarding Jordan:

Then there is reference from the Court to the person letter (the same letter that you talking about). But they refer it to the private land and the Court didnt deny what the person said about the ownership of the Land of Israel:

You can see that the Court didnt deny what the person said about the ownership about the Land of Israel, but they refered it to the private property. which is refering to the private land that Elon Moreh was existed on.

And to rainforce the Court claim about "denying the private property of those who are not allies" the judge qouted from Leviticus.
And if that's not satisfying you, there's also this:

Also in this part you can see that the Court isnt denying what the person said about the ownership of the Land of Israel, and they just rainforced it by recalling the Mandate. The Court did say that the civil rights need to be respected! Which means by regarding the "civil rights" they talking about the land that Elon Moreh was existed on.

Source: http://www.hamoked.org/files/2010/1670_eng.pdf

 

The Israeli Supreme Court says Judea & Samaria are under Israeli military occupation. That's why they declared that the 1907 Hague Convention governs these lands.

British law is secondary to international law, when it comes to the West Bank.

...or do you think the Israeli Supreme Court, are idiots?

 

The Israeli Supreme Court ruling from 1979 doesnt classified the West Bank as "occupied", as I showed you.

 

sure it does. That's why they say the 1907 Hague Convention applies to Judea & Samaria.

if Judea & Samaria is not occupied, than the 1907 Hague Convention doesn't apply.



.....or are you saying the Israeli Supreme Court are fools?

 

I'm saying that based on the acutall ruling from 1979, the Supreme Court didnt stated there that the West Bank is "occupied". I already showed you that.

 

they absolutely declared the West Bank as "occupied". The 1907 Hague Convention applies to Occupied territory.