Pure Zionism by the right in Israel

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 1907 Hague Conventions applies to military occupation.

and the Supreme Court says the 1907 Hague Convention applies to Judea & Samaria.

game...set..match.

 

And I just showed you that in the ruling of 1979 the Supreme Court didnt mentioned Judea and Samaria as "occupied".

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

 

and yet you say that the ICJ said that the Palestine Mandate is still in effect.

lol!!!!!!!!!

 

The ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate. Now, if the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate, then it means that they used what was written in the Mandate that says that the Jews have the right to settle in "Palestine", which means that if they used a statement from the Mandate (when they wrote in Article 73 that it's cunstituted "Palestine"), then they need also to refered the West Bank as it was refered in the Mandate, which is a place that Jews can settle, which makes the argument that "the settlements are illegal", as false argument.

 

this was a historical reference ONLY, and its very dishonest for you to suggest that the ICJ was actually saying that the Palestine Mandate is still in effect.

it would be like saying that State of New York is still part of the British Empire, simply because we still have the old name for the British Province of New York.

 

Suggesting to ignore a non binding report is chaos? You also again don't seem to mind that the Sasson report is ignored(when have any Israeli official been prosecuted for illegal outposts like the Sasson report recommended?) nor that Levy report contradicts Sasson that instead of recommending demolition orders(if Levy report was adopted demolition orders would be cancelled since it recommended legalizing outposts) to be implemented against outposts with a committee formed to discuss and follow up on house demolitions instead Levy report recommends them to be legalized even though some of them our on private Palestinian property. You aren't respecting Supreme Court(with far rightists like some members of Likud, and Jewish Home wanting to end Supreme Court's independence) if you support this report. The Supreme Court for decades has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under occupation. The Levy report contradict that. by saying Israel is not an occupying power. It also goes against Supreme Court when it calls for legalizing outposts that include private Palestinian property since 1979 settlements are suppose to not be on any Palestinian private property. Not all of Likud voted for it. In the knesset vote for it 21 Likud MK voted for it and 17 Likud MK against. Of the Likud MK's, Yisrael Katz, Dan Naveh, Limor Livnat, and Bibi voted on the basis of a referendum held for the disengagement. Bibi later resigned after voting against(cabinet 17-5 vote cabinet included Likud and other parties like Labor that joined the government to support disengagement) disengagement along with Katz, Naveh, Livnat, and Tzachi Hanegbi for the first phrase of it.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/netanyahu-quits-government-over-disengagement-1.166152
http://www.haaretz.com/news/knesset-approves-pm-sharon-s-disengagement-plan-1.138398

All of them have links with right making them far from impartial members. Levi as mayor of Ramle for Likud and only justice in Supreme Court that voted against disengagement. Another one that resides in the settlements. The third one daughter of a former chief rabbi that said it goes it's halachical(against Jewish law) forbidden to give up any settlements and encouraged soldiers to refuse any orders to.

 

No matter how many times you say it all ICJ say is areas that constitute Palestine. It doesn't say anything else. Anything else you say is not applicable regarding ICJ and your own opinion since you are not using anything in the ICJ, thus you have absolutely no argument here.

 

it is not the same thing as what I wrote to you.
I wrote to you that the ICJ refers the eares as territories that constituted "Palestine", and not only because of names. Thus your example is not contradicting what I wrote to you.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm using the acutall Advisory Opinion from 2004. Where Article 73 was written.

 

You are suggesting ignoring governmantal reports by the government itself. If so, then also the governmental report regarding education and it's recommandations about education can be ignore, as well governmental reports regarding infrestracture, as well as Levi'es report (According to you), thus if you will ignore that, there will be chaos, because in education it can be chaos by not having order, and basic behaviors and learning framework, as well as it can be disordered all according Judea and Samaria, regarding it's status.

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.

I'm respecting the Supreme Court.
Non of the rulings of the Supreme Court was never used Article 80 of the UN Charter, that protects the Mandate. That's why they assumed that the settlements are "illegal", while Levi's report is using Article 80, several of international experts of the international law + other international laws to reinforce their claims that the setlements are not "illegal", and Israel is not occupying the West Bank.

 

so you think Israel should ignore their Supreme Court?

 

Other then using "areas that constitute Palestine" nothing else you said is in ICJ court decision(ie that Jews can settle West Bank, not only because of names? other then areas that constitute Palestine ICJ doc doesn't say anything else, everything else you said is your opinion not ICJ). Thus you have no argument on ICJ decision.

 

I find it funny the idea that the Israeli government should give more weight to a biased non-legally binding report, than a Supreme Court decision.

sounds like something Nazi Germany would do.

 

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?

 

you're saying the Supreme Court decision is crap?

 

As I already wrote:

The ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate. Now, if the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate, then it means that they used what was written in the Mandate that says that the Jews have the right to settle in "Palestine", which means that if they used a statement from the Mandate (when they wrote in Article 73 that it's cunstituted "Palestine"), then they need also to refered the West Bank as it was refered in the Mandate, which is a place that Jews can settle, which makes the argument that "the settlements are illegal", as false argument.

The sasson Report is disscusing about outposts, while Levi's Report is disscusing about settlements and the status of Judea and Samaria. All those are seperate issues.
They cant contradict each other, because outposts are not settlements. There are settlements and there are outposts. Levi's Report is saying that the settlements are legal and there is no occupation, thus, Sasson report is not contradicting Levi's Report.

I'm respecting the Sureme Court, and it is not contradicting Levi's Report. The Levi's Report is contradicting all rulings that says the West Bank is occupied, and the settlements are illegal, by relying on the UN Charter and rest of the International Law.

You know that if a new report is been published and contradict an older reports by providing new evidences that was never been used in the older reports, it means that the new report is valid, while the older reports are been unvalid.

But if we follow your logic, then it means that even the theory about the world is a square, is a valid theory, because it is contradicting the new theory that the world is acutally round.
If you are agreeing that the world is round, hence the theory about the world is square, is not valid, then you need to think the same about Levi's Report (to hink it is valid), while the older reports that been contradicted by Levi's Report are not valid anymore.

So are you saying that all those experts of yours, are above the UN Charter?

Those people talked in the letter about their personal feelings, thus it is not contradicting Levi's Report, or make it unvalid.
Or maybe are you saying that personal feelings are above international laws?

The Levi's report is saying that the settlements are legal. Settlements are not Outposts.

And still it doesnt contaridct Levi's report, or make it unvalid.

So are you saying that the her father took part of the Report, and not herself?

- - - Updated - - -

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?

But if we follow your logic, then it means that even the theory about the world is a square, is a valid theory, because it is contradicting the new theory that the world is acutally round.
If you are agreeing that the world is round, hence the theory about the world is square, is not valid, then you need to think the same about Levi's Report (to hink it is valid), while the older reports that been contradicted by Levi's Report are not valid anymore.

 

this was a historical reference, only.

- - - Updated - - -

no. but the Supreme Court ruling has more weight than a non-legally binding report.

 

As I already wrote:

The ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate. Now, if the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate, then it means that they used what was written in the Mandate that says that the Jews have the right to settle in "Palestine", which means that if they used a statement from the Mandate (when they wrote in Article 73 that it's cunstituted "Palestine"), then they need also to refered the West Bank as it was refered in the Mandate, which is a place that Jews can settle, which makes the argument that "the settlements are illegal", as false argument.

So if you are saying that a governamntal report need to be respected by the government itself, then it means that the Israeli government needs to respect Levi's Report.
But, if you are disagreeing with that, then you are saying that the government can ignore their own reports.

 

No matter how many times you say it all the ICJ says is "areas that constitute Palestine"(nor do they refer to mandate document since they never quote it) everything else you said about is not in the decision and is your opinion not ICJ.

The Levi report was appointed to look into status of unauthorized West Bank settlements. Here is excerpt from article about the report
"
A new government-initiated report on West Bank outposts criticized the actions of past administrations that led to the creation of the illegal West Bank Jewish communities, even as it recommended transforming them where possible into new settlements.
In late January, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appointed the trio – nicknamed the “outpost committee” – to investigate the legal status of unauthorized West Bank Jewish building."
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Legal-report-on-outposts-recommends-authorization

Again Levi report doesn't override decades of ruling that it's occupation, and Supreme Court rulings are binding the Levy report isn't.
How does being a new report override the old report? The Levy report also says some of the same things as Sasson report. Here is some excerpts from the article "Still, the report noted that unauthorized Jewish building, including some 100 outposts built from 1991 to 2005, had occurred with the help of government offices and ministries.

According to the report, unauthorized Jewish building in Judea and Samaria was “carried out with the knowledge, encouragement and tactic agreement of the most senior political level – government ministers and the prime minister.
"We wish to stress that the picture that has been displayed before us regarding Israeli settlement activity in Judea and Samaria does not befit the behavior of a state that prides itself on, and is committed to, the rule of law,” said the report
This building moved forward even though it lacked the proper permits and authorizations, the report said."
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Legal-report-on-outposts-recommends-authorization
In other words Levy report agrees with Sasson report that the outposts weren't carried out in accordance with Israeli law but differ in recommendations with Levy report recommended them being legalized while Sasson report called for all demolition orders to be carried out with a forum set up to discuss demolition orders and to follow up on them. In addition Sasson report called for officials that supported illegal outpost to be prosecuted which again you don't seem to mind to ignore.

I didn't say that her father took part in the report. I was noting that all of them are bias toward the settlements.

What does agreeing that the world is round have to do with this? As noted above both Levy and Sasson report noted that outposts were established against Israeli law due to not having permits and proper authorization with the reports differing on recommendations to solve the problem, the Levy report stated that Israel is not an occupying power(Sasson report focused on illegal outposts and didn't state whether or not Israel is an occupying power although author of report Talia Sasson condemned Levy report noting that the report goes against decades of Israeli Supreme Court rulings). As noted before on this forum most experts regard Israel and bodies of authority like ICJ, UNSC, and International Red Cross as occupying power.

 

It's not my opinion, but it is according to Article 73 from the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ from 2004.

According to the report itself:

Source: http://regavim.org.il/en/wp-content...-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria2.pdf

As you can see, the report is talking about settlements and not outposts. Hence, Levi's Report cant ignore Sasson Report, because Sasson report and Levi's report talked about different things (in the Sasson Report it was talking about outposts and in Levi's report about settlements).

As I arelady wrote to you:

You know that if a new report is been published and contradict an older reports by providing new evidences that was never been used in the older reports, it means that the new report is valid, while the older reports are been unvalid.

But if we follow your logic, then it means that even the theory about the world is a square, is a valid theory, because it is contradicting the new theory that the world is acutally round.
If you are agreeing that the world is round, hence the theory about the world is square, is not valid, then you need to think the same about Levi's Report (to hink it is valid), while the older reports that been contradicted by Levi's Report are not valid anymore.

A new report overrides old report, when the new report is using and relying in his report on new evidences and on new information that wasnt used in the older reports. Hence, the new report is valid, while the old report cannot be no longer valid.

But if we follow your logic, then it means that even the theory about the world is a square, is a valid theory, because it is contradicting the new theory that the world is acutally round.
If you are agreeing that the world is round, hence the theory about the world is square, is not valid, then you need to think the same about Levi's Report (to hink it is valid), while the older reports that been contradicted by Levi's Report are not valid anymore.

You cant really say that.
It doesnt metter who her father is, if he wasnt participeted in the letter.
It's like you will say that all sons and daughters of singers, must also sing and have a singing carear, because they father/mother had a singer. Is that correct to assume that? no, right?

It is an example, that your assumption that the old report cant override the new report if the new report is using new evidences that wasnt used by the old report.
If you are saying that a old reports override a new report, then you can support that the world is sqaure and not round. But if you are disagreeing with that, then it means that you actually saying that new report is override an older reports, thus your claim about the Levi's report and the older reports is not applicable

So are you saying your experts are above international law?

 

I have never said the experts are above international law. As I have said countless times UN charter is part of international these experts specialize in international law, thus they don't believe article 80 allows Jews to settle the West Bank.

Other than areas that "constituent Palestine" nothing else you said is in the ICJ decision and is your opinion, thus you have no argument.


The Levy report was appointed to look into outposts. Again I quoted an article about it
"In late January, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appointed the trio – nicknamed the “outpost committee” – to investigate the legal status of unauthorized West Bank Jewish building.
Still, the report noted that unauthorized Jewish building, including some 100 outposts built from 1991 to 2005, had occurred with the help of government offices and ministries.
According to the report, unauthorized Jewish building in Judea and Samaria was “carried out with the knowledge, encouragement and tactic agreement of the most senior political level – government ministers and the prime minister.
"We wish to stress that the picture that has been displayed before us regarding Israeli settlement activity in Judea and Samaria does not befit the behavior of a state that prides itself on, and is committed to, the rule of law,” said the report
This building moved forward even though it lacked the proper permits and authorizations, the report said."
This is from Jerusalem Post are they lying? The report as noted above agrees with Sasson report that the outposts weren't created in accordance with Israeli law ie without permits and proper authorization.

Here is excerpt from ynet on Levy report
"Israel must legalize the majority of illegal West Bank outposts, a committee appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to review the legal status of such communities recommended, Ynet learned Monday.
"The conduct we discovered vis-à-vis the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria is unbecoming of a nation that has made the rule of law one of its primary objectives," he wrote.
Still, the committee's recommendations are not mandating. Netanyahu is likely to ask the Ministerial Committee on Settlements to review the report. "
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4252945,00.html is ynet lying?

Here is excerpts from Levy report referring to the outposts as settlement points
"the results of this we present in this report, at the center of which is the issue of the establishment and continued existence of settlement points, which some view as new settlements, while others consider them to be “neighborhoods” of existing settlements. These settlement points have been defined in the past as “unauthorized,” apparently due to the fact that with regard to some, their construction was not preceded by a government decision. However, some of them can a so be considered to be “illegal” as they were built without approval from the planning authorities. That is the main issue that we will be pursuing here, although we will relate to other issues that we considered to be of special importance."
http://regavim.org.il/en/wp-content...-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria2.pdf

The Levy report was examined to look at outposts with one of its recommendations legalizing outposts. In looking at outposts the Levy report also looks at Jewish settlement in general.

In the case of Levy and Baker they still are bias with Levy a former Ramle mayor for Likud and justice that was only to vote against disengagement, and Baker residing in a settlement.

As mentioned before the recommendations are different with Levy calling for legalizing of outposts which again goes against Supreme Court since some of those outposts our on private Palestinian property. As mentioned before the Supreme Court has been ruling for decades that Israel is an occupying power which is binding while Levy report is not which is another reason if you support Levy report you are disrespecting Supreme Court.

How does being a new report contradict Sasson report especially when both Sasson and Levy agree that the outposts weren't carried out in accordance of Israeli law as mentioned above? Even if for the sake of argument Levy report made Sasson void since Levy is newer the Israeli government still ignored the recommendation of Sasson report for 7 years(Sasson report came out in 2005 and Levy in 2012)of criminal prosecution for officials that supported illegal outpost.

 

why not? you say yours are.

- - - Updated - - -

Supreme Court decisions are legally binding.

Levi's report is not.

but you seem to think Levi's report is more important than the 1979 Elon Moreh decision.

lol!!!!

 

My experts are following international law when they say that the West Bank is not occupied and the settlement are not illegal. Like Article 80.
Yours experts are not using that Article, and even ignore it when they say that the West Bank is occupied and the settlements are illegal. Hence, yours experts are above interanional law and mne not, and you even support it, which means that you dont think that people must respect laws.

Elon Moreh doesnt say that the West Bank is occupied.

But if we follow your logic, then it means that even the theory about the world is a square, is a valid theory, because it is contradicting the new theory that the world is acutally round.
If you are agreeing that the world is round, hence the theory about the world is square, is not valid, then you need to think the same about Levi's Report (to hink it is valid), while the older reports that been contradicted by Levi's Report are not valid anymore.

 

So you say that beliefs are mor importent then laws?

Like I worte:

he ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate. Now, if the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate, then it means that they used what was written in the Mandate that says that the Jews have the right to settle in "Palestine", which means that if they used a statement from the Mandate (when they wrote in Article 73 that it's cunstituted "Palestine"), then they need also to refered the West Bank as it was refered in the Mandate, which is a place that Jews can settle, which makes the argument that "the settlements are illegal", as false argument.

And I qouted the actuall report that mentioned there just settlements in it's conclusion

According to the report itself:

Source: http://regavim.org.il/en/wp-content/...d-Samaria2.pdf

As you can see, the report is talking about settlements and not outposts. Hence, Levi's Report cant ignore Sasson Report, because Sasson report and Levi's report talked about different things (in the Sasson Report it was talking about outposts and in Levi's report about settlements).

And if you will read it again, you will see that Levi's report will discuss on the status of the settlements, not outposts. And which in the end of the report (the conclusion) it stated that the settlements are legal.

You debunked your whole claim by yourself.

The Levi's report was exmined to look at settlements, as you showed in your comment. Settlements are not outposts.

As I arelady wrote to you:

You know that if a new report is been published and contradict an older reports by providing new evidences that was never been used in the older reports, it means that the new report is valid, while the older reports are been unvalid.

But if we follow your logic, then it means that even the theory about the world is a square, is a valid theory, because it is contradicting the new theory that the world is acutally round.
If you are agreeing that the world is round, hence the theory about the world is square, is not valid, then you need to think the same about Levi's Report (to hink it is valid), while the older reports that been contradicted by Levi's Report are not valid anymore.