http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Kerry-US-considers-Israeli-settlements-to-be-illegal-330786 that is the official policy of the USA. its a good policy.
Ronstar, et al, There is no question that the Settlements were going to be troublesome. (COMMENT) I don't even think the Israelis even believe that Settlements were in any way legitimate. While I understand what the original intended purpose was behind settlements, I'm at a loss as to how the Israelis could possibly think it could bring pressure on the Arab-Palestinians to move towards peace. As "war crimes" go, it is one one the most minor there is; as it is none violent and non-lethal. It nothing in comparison to the terrorist acts the Palestinians pull. But is is a major advantage in terms of propaganda. Again, as I've said before, I think the Israelis should unilaterally withdraw in a non-destructive manner, from the West Bank. Then, when the Arab-Palestinian restart hostilities, take the West Bank as an unincorporated territory. Most Respectfully, R
Israel should unilaterally withdraw all settlers and military to the Seperation Barrier. That will leave around 8.5% of the West Bank in Israel's hands.
With all due respect <especially> to all your past retorts in this forum, I must emphasize though, that building in Area 'C' is not illegal. Area 'C' is under Israel's jurisdiction and building in it for the growing city families is proof positive that the Land is the <Land of Israel> and no one not even Obama who cannot solve any international discord and domestic health care system will change proofs on the ground in Judea and Samaria.
Ronstar, et al, This is a very tough and difficult subject. (COMMENT) What are legal actions, pertaining to laws, are a matter of the society. And yes, by the greater society represented by the UN, there are some violations and infractions that have been committed on the part of the Israelis. But if any of the aggressor actions on the part of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (or the associate Arab countries that were involved) turned in the Arab favor, do you think that the Arabs would have done any different? This is their region, and you either play by their rules or die. In terms of morality, again these are Arabs. Is there any country in the region that have demonstrated more positive morality than that of Israel? (Rhetorical: Because I think not.) The Arab Palestinian's morality is that of Jihad. Do you think that the people that committed the Olympic Massacre in Munich, or pirated the Achille Lauro and killed and American in a wheel chair throwing his body overboard is moral? Do you think that when Palestinians hijacked TWA Flight 847 and killed U.S. Navy Diver Robert Stethem throwing his body on the tarmac, that was moral? Do you think that when Palestinian terrorists open fire on a busload of pilgrims killing Barbara Ertle of Michigan and wounding two other Americans, that was moral? Do you think that the bombing at the Rosh Ha'ir restaurant in Tel Aviv, killing Daniel Wultz, 16, of Weston, Florida, was moral? Do you think that the bombing on a bus in Jerusalem, killing Goldie Taubenfeld, 43, of New Square, New York; Shmuel Taubenfeld, 3 months, of New Square, New York; Mordechai Reinitz, 49; Yitzhak Reinitz, 9. Tehilla Nathanson, 3, of Monsey, New York; was moral? The morality is defined by the people of the region like Dr 'Issam 'Adwan, director, Hamas Refugee Affairs Department who said: "No one has the right to condemn the resistance for any of the methods that it adopts, because it knows better than everyone else what is good for it and for its noble objectives." I need someone to tell me what the Arab legal and moral values are before I can condemn the generally non-violent confiscation of Arab private property and then building settlements. Yes they violate Article 8 of the Rome Statues. But in the magnitude of the offense, which cultural group is the most heinous? Most Respectfully, R
Goomba, et al, I see it as a minor infraction. No, I don't condemn the Israelis if that are the only choices. (COMMENT) I see reasonable cause for what the Israelis are attempting. I don't see what the Israelis do as of the same magnitude of criminality as that of the documented behaviors of the Palestinian or the associated Arab League support system. Most Respectfully, R
The Israelis have confiscated Arab private property for "military" purposes, and then let the settlers build homes and civilian infrastructure there, with no compensation or rent to the original owners. This is highly immoral and illegal.
Israel is by far the most immoral place on the face of this earth and only Israelis and American diplomats fail to see this. Americans themselves though are starting to see what is true and what is false. I'd be a "terrorist" too if I was in the Palestinians hopeless shoes. Unfortunately the israeli government is the true terrorist organization and it will fall. It's only a matter of time and since it's 2013 and not 1950 the truth can be found without a textbook with a Zionist agenda. Although the majority of the world knows what the truth is.
Myself I think they are great as it takes the Palestinians eyes off their true official mission which is to destroy Israel and subsequently all within it. You of course wish to push the secondary and inconsequential issue of settlements which will continue until the main program is removed from the psyche of the Palestinians. Clock is ticking, sooner or later the door for two state viability will close and there will be only one party who wins.
Unfortunately people who express such derision should be left alone for the MODs to handle. Why should you take the time to defend Israel when someone of this caliber has alread gone over the limit of decency without providing any proof to sustain his scatological remarks against Israel?
The trouble for Netanyahu started Wednesday, when Secretary of State John Kerry took some shots at the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank -- long criticized by the United States as a threat to peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. "We consider now and have always considered the settlements to be illegitimate," Kerry said from Bethlehem, where he'd met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Kerry noted that "the Palestinians believe that the settlements are illegal" before again calling them illegitimate. His earlier meeting with Netanyahu had been much chillier; as Reuters summed up the tour, the U.S. secretary of state "appeared to slap down Netanyahu and warmly endorsed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's commitment to seeking a two-state solution." more http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...etanyahu-could-kill-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran/
Margot2, et al, I think everyone understood that the Israeli Settlement strategy in the Occupied Territories, was a bad strategy to begin with. I think everyone understood that the settlement strategy was going against the grain of international consensus. At some point, the Israeli Leadership understood that, just as in Gaza, the Israeli would have to abandone the settelments and return the land to the owners and surrender territorial control to the Palestinians (whatever form that may take at the time). (COMMENT) The media seems to over dramatize the US-Israeli meetings. The US is in no position to slap-down anyone. Israel is in the superior position. The question becomes, can anything persuade the Israelis to receive the Palestinians in reconciliation; and vice versa, can anything persuade the Palestinians to receive the Israeli in reconciliation. My assessment is that neither side is truly ready for peace and willing to compromise in any good faith measure. They want the Palestinian to suffer more and Israelis to assume ever more control over Palestinian territory. Eventually, the Palestinians will have delayed for so long that, they will not have much in terms of negating position. No good faith effort actually does not work in the Arab Palestinian favor. Most Respectfully, R
Right, land theft is simply a 'minor infraction' (not to mention other Israeli abuses). Why not? Does the same apply to the other individual actors if they also were the only choices? So what, unless you yourself find what the Israelis are attempting as reasonable? That would depend on the time and place.
Margot2, et al, Just as neither side has clean hands from an historical view of past behaviors, so it is that neither side is completely radical, fanatical, or fundamentalist in any given position. There are those (on both sides) that would like to see the conflict continue indefinitely (it is the only way of life some Arabs know). There are some that, in good faith, would like to pursue peaceful compromise (very few in numbers, but see the futility in conflict, especially its adverse effects on Arab prosperity and cultural development). Then there are some, on both sides, that cannot see beyond the first two decades of the 20th Century. These are the demanders - all or nothing ("from the river to the sea") and have taken the position that the ends justified the means. (COMMENT) This may be your "thought," but as for the Palestinian, there is a "solemn declaration" in place (no thought or guess work required): From this Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) "solemn declaration" ("before the United Nations, before God and history") came the words of the Covenant and Charter: Covenant (Article 13): There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Charter (Article 9): Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. There is no similar Israeli declaration of "death to all Palestinians," as there is in the reverse. But it would be foolish to assume that, at least in some small part of the society, might have harbored similar feelings. In the nearly eight ( plus decades since the emergence of Izz ad-din al-Qassam (founder of the Palestinian Black Hand after Western Wall Uprising, the 1929 Massacres), the conflict has intensified and expanded; several times over. The Israeli might stop at any point. But it is that Israeli that assumes the risk. If the Israeli compromises and abandons the Occupied Territory, it only invites Palestinians to reconstitute the threat mechanisms and resume the conflict. Most Respectfully, R
confiscating Arab private property for military purposes, declaring it a closed military zone, and then allowing Jews to build civilian settlements there without any rent or payments to the original owners, is 100% theft. shame on Israel.
Goomba, et al, (COMMENT) Well, to an extent, it is not really so "minor," as it is so vastly different in the scope and magnitude of the offense. It is, for the most part, non-lethal. By comparison, the actions taken by the Palestinian in terms of stated threats, and the demonstrated capacity to carry-out those threats in the form of terrorist action, is something different. (COMMENT) Only choices: Condemn Not Condemn I don't view or assess this as a compliance oriented situation (check the block). We have to look at the entire scenario, as it played out and as it stands today. The Allied Powers assume control over the Territory (by Treaty). The Allied Powers establish a series of Mandates. The Allied Powers begin the planning for the future of the Mandates. The Allied Powers begin to set condition for future states and self rule. Self-determination and Planning results in the emergence of new States: Lebanon (Arab) Syria (Arab) Iraq (Arab) Jordan (Arab) Conflict erupts between Arabs, the Mandatory, and the Jewish Immigrants. 1929 Riots Establishment of the Palestinian Black Hand Jewish begin to plan their defense. Trustees Partition the Territory in to the final two states: Arab State Jewish State International City (Jerusalem) Normally "I" think of aggression as the use of armed force by the Arab States against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the recognized State of Israel, that did nothing but follow the UN General Assembly recommended steps preparatory to independence as outlined in General Assembly Resolution 181(II). Normally, Article 2 type Aggression, is the first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity. Since that point in time, many factors have come into play. There have been two subsequence wars, several insurrections/insurgencies, and a list of Palestinian Terrorist attacks a mile long. Thus, any more non-violent measures taken that can possibly induce peace talks entered in good faith, are preferable to open conflict and war. (COMMENT) The current published official position of the Palestinians is that, armed struggle and Jihad are the solution. If what the Israelis are doing can bring such pressure, in a much less violent way, than the Palestinian policy, THEN: IMO ---> what the Israelis are attempting as reasonable. Most Respectfully, R
I can accept the possible legality of building settlements on former Jordanian state lands in the West Bank. That's one thing. But Israel has been confiscating private property in the West Bank for decades, declaring the land closed military zones, bulldozing Arab houses and infrastructure, and then allowing Jews build settlements there. Its illegal, immoral, and absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
Ronstar, et al, It would be proper to say that the establishment of most of the settlements are prima facie illegal. (COMMENT) There is some truth in what you say. But in attempt to pressure the Palestinians to sue for peace, it would be much better to use this technique than to further military confrontations. Most Respectfully, R
'Terrorist' actions are a response to Israeli land theft and occupation (not to mention other Israeli abuses which have not been non-lethal). But I understand how you see things: Israeli use of force= Military Operations; Palestinian use of force= Terrorism. We're talking about land theft. Why can't just condemn this ourtight? The Arabs were right to attack the nascent state of Israel. The Arabs did not agree to the resolution (and rightly so). Well if Israel intends to steal more land and continue its occupation, peace talks would be pointless. No, that is not the "current published official position of the Palestinians." Land theft on the other hand, well, that is an official position of the Israelis.
I am retorting to your post with the formal letter of Ambassador Baker to Mr. Kerry directly, I hope you will have the time to respond to this subject. RoccorR, I picked you over many here that have a warped ingrained notion or shall I say Noxious attempts at defaming Israel. Here is the Official Letter... The Hon. James Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State, The State Department, Washington D.C. November 8, 2013 Dear Secretary Kerry, After listening to you declare repeatedly over the past weeks that "Israel's settlements are illegitimate", I respectfully wish to state, unequivocally, that you are mistaken and ill advised, both in law and in fact. Pursuant to the "Oslo Accords", and specifically the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement (1995), the "issue of settlements" is one of subjects to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. President Bill Clinton on behalf of the US, is signatory as witness to that agreement, together with the leaders of the EU, Russia, Egypt, Jordan and Norway. Your statements serve to not only to prejudge this negotiating issue, but also to undermine the integrity of that agreement, as well as the very negotiations that you so enthusiastically advocate. Your determination that Israel's settlements are illegitimate cannot be legally substantiated. The oft-quoted prohibition on transferring population into occupied territory (Art. 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention) was, according to the International Committee Red Cross's own official commentary of that convention, drafted in 1949 to prevent the forced, mass transfer of populations carried out by the n*z*s in the Second World War. It was never intended to apply to Israel's settlement activity. Attempts by the international community to attribute this article to Israel emanate from clear partisan motives, with which you, and the US are now identifying. The formal applicability of that convention to the disputed territories cannot be claimed since they were not occupied from a prior, legitimate sovereign power. The territories cannot be defined as "Palestinian territories" or, as you yourself frequently state, as "Palestine". No such entity exists, and the whole purpose of the permanent status negotiation is to determine, by agreement, the status of the territory, to which Israel has a legitimate claim, backed by international legal and historic rights. How can you presume to undermine this negotiation? There is no requirement in any of the signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians that Israel cease, or freeze settlement activity. The opposite is in fact the case. The above-noted 1995 interim agreement enables each party to plan, zone and build in the areas under its respective control. Israel's settlement policy neither prejudices the outcome of the negotiations nor does it involve displacement of local Palestinian residents from their private property. Israel is indeed duly committed to negotiate the issue of settlements, and thus there is no room for any predetermination by you intended to prejudge the outcome of that negotiation. By your repeating this ill-advised determination that Israel's settlements are illegitimate, and by your threatening Israel with a "third Palestinian intifada" and international isolation and delegitimization, you are in fact buying into, and even fueling the Palestinian propaganda narrative, and exerting unfair pressure on Israel. This is equally the case with your insistence on a false and unrealistic time limit to the negotiation. As such you are taking sides, thereby prejudicing your own personal credibility, as well as that of the US. With a view to restoring your own and the US's credibility, and to come with clean hands to the negotiation, you are respectfully requested to publicly and formally retract your determination as to the illegitimate nature of Israel's settlements and to cease your pressure on Israel. Respectfully, Alan Baker, Attorney, Ambassador (ret'), Former legal counsel of Israel's Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Former ambassador of Israel to Canada, Director, Institute for Contemporary Affairs, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Director, International Action Division, The Legal Forum for Israel
