International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Netanyahu Declares No Palestinian State if He’s Re-elected
Source:
NYT
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/w ... -campaign-settlement.html?_r=0
Published: Mar 16, 2015
Author: staff
Post Date: 2015-03-16 20:15:13 by cranko
Keywords: None
Views: 8794
Comments: 52
Under pressure on the eve of a surprisingly close election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Monday doubled down on his appeal to right-wing voters, declaring definitively that if he was returned to office he would never establish a Palestinian state
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
#3. To: cranko (#0)
That's not his call. UN181 set aside land for a Palestinian state, and UN 242 and UN338 called for Israel to get out of that Palestinian land. All of those resolutions were unanimous, meaning the U.S. approved them. Yet, Israel continues to spit in our face while accepting billions in aid.
UN181 set aside land for a Palestinian state, and UN 242 and UN338 called for Israel to get out of that Palestinian land. All of those resolutions were unanimous, meaning the U.S. approved them. It most certainly is his call. His country. Take your UN and shove it up your ass. The UN isn't the worlds leader. Maybe in your leftist delusion. Yes you're a leftist.
His country? Sure. Part of it is. But we're talking about the Palestinian part. That's not his. "The UN isn't the worlds leader." Israel also signed the 4th Geneva Convention. Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" That means, "Get the f**k out of Palestinian land".
There is no occupied land. Not in the context you say. You can mouth off about a pali state all you want. But where is it? It isn't there. It will never exist. If you want it to exist you should go back to your people the Palestinians and help them fight. That is the only way your people will have a land. That is if you defeat the legitimate owners and steal it. But that isn't going to happen. You know it. That is why you sit on the sidelines instead of going to fight for your blood kindred.
Israel occupies the West Bank and East Jerusalem with troops, and has transferred civilians into that territory. "But where is it?" Read UN 181 which defines the land given to Israel and the land given to the Palestinians. It's under Part II, Boundaries. http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253
What part of fuck the UN do you not understand? Noted that you worship and suck the UN's dick.
What part of occupied territory do you not understand. The ISRAELI SUPREME COURT wrote, "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation." The ISRAELI SUPREME COURT ruled that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories [footnotes omitted, emphasis added] Main article: Status of territories captured by Israel The Israeli government maintains that according to international law the West Bank status is that of disputed territories. The question is important given if the status of "occupied territories" has a bearing on the legal duties and rights of Israel toward those. Hence it has been discussed in various forums including the UN. Israeli judicial decisions In two cases decided shortly after independence, in the Shimshon and Stampfer cases, the Supreme Court of Israel held that the fundamental rules of international law accepted as binding by all "civilized" nations were incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal determined that the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 were customary law that had been recognized by all civilized nations. In the past, the Supreme Court has argued that the Geneva Convention insofar it is not supported by domestic legislation "does not bind this Court, its enforcement being a matter for the states which are parties to the Convention". They ruled that "Conventional international law does not become part of Israeli law through automatic incorporation, but only if it is adopted or combined with Israeli law by enactment of primary or subsidiary legislation from which it derives its force". However, in the same decision the [Israeli Supreme] Court ruled that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law. The settlement Elon Moreh, 2008 A military checkpoint along the route of the forthcoming West Bank Barrier The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that the area in question was under occupation and that accordingly only the military commander of the area may requisition land according to Article 52 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal. In recent decades, the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence. In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel: Israeli legal and political views Soon after the 1967 war, Israel issued a military order stating that the Geneva Conventions applied to the recently occupied territories, but this order was rescinded a few months later. For a number of years, Israel argued on various grounds that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. One is the Missing Reversioner theory which argued that the Geneva Conventions apply only to the sovereign territory of a High Contracting Party, and therefore do not apply since Jordan never exercised sovereignty over the region. However, that interpretation is not shared by the international community. The application of Geneva Convention to Occupied Palestinian Territories was further upheld by International Court of Justice, UN General Assembly, UN Security Council and the Israeli Supreme Court. In the cases before the Israeli High Court of Justice the government has agreed that the military commander’s authority is anchored in the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs says that the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention and certain parts of Additional Protocol I reflect customary international law that is applicable in the occupied territories. Gershom Gorenberg has written that the Israeli government knew at the outset that it was violating the Geneva Convention by creating civilian settlements in the territories under IDF administration. He explained that as the legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron was the Israeli government's expert on international law. On September 16, 1967 Meron wrote a top secret memo to Mr. Adi Yafeh, Political Secretary of the Prime Minister regarding "Settlement in the Administered Territories" which said "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the Administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Moshe Dayan authored a secret memo in 1968 proposing massive settlement in the territories which said “Settling Israelis in administered territory, as is known, contravenes international conventions, but there is nothing essentially new about that.” Various Israeli Cabinets have made political statements and many of Israel's citizens and supporters dispute that the territories are occupied and claim that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history, and that it prejudges the outcome of any future or ongoing negotiations. They argue it is more accurate to refer to the territories as "disputed" rather than "occupied" although they agree to apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention pending resolution of the dispute. Yoram Dinstein, has dismissed the position that they are not occupied as being “based on dubious legal grounds”. Many Israeli government websites do refer to the areas as being "occupied territories". According to the BBC, "Israel argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place." In the Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria, usually referred to as Levy Report, published in July 2012, a three member committee headed by former Israeli Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy which was appointed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu comes to the conclusion that Israel's presence in the West Bank is not an occupation in the legal sense, and that the Israeli settlements in those territories do not contravene international law. The report has met with both approval and harsh criticism in Israel and outside. As of July 2013, the report was not brought before the Israeli cabinet or any parliamentary or governmental body which would have the power to approve it. The Supreme Court of Israel, as well as the International Court of Justice, have found that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law. Recognized customary international law applies to all nations, and such applicability is not dependent upon ratification or being a party. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. Art. 44. A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defense. Art. 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power. Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. Art. 47. Pillage is formally forbidden. Art. 48. If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do so, as far as is possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound. Art. 49. If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question. Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible. Art. 51. No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a commander-in-chief. The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected as far as possible in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the taxes in force. For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the contributors. Art. 52. Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country. Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible. Art. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations. All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made. Art. 54. Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They must likewise be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made. Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. Art. 56. The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949 Compiled under the direction of Charles I. Bevans LL.B.
Stars and gripes: Declaration of Independence was illegal, claim British lawyers British lawyers state the document amounted to treason Americans said that independence was a 'natural law' movement and had been repeated across the world Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051805/Declaration- Independence-illegal-claim-British-lawyers.html#ixzz3UjoJGoSf Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Stars and gripes: Declaration of Independence was illegal, claim British lawyers British lawyers state the document amounted to treason Americans said that independence was a 'natural law' movement and had been repeated across the world Of course, the Declaration of Independence was unlawful. It was a bunch of political blather. Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men were created equal while being tended to by his body servant slave Jupiter. Washington, as well as Jefferson, never freed his slaves. The people who issued it had no authority to speak for anyone other than themselves, and the law that applied to them at the time was British law. If the revolution had failed, they may well have been hanged for treason. Unless, of course, the Form of Government is that of the United States, where it is a perpetual union made more perfect, and the union is indissoluble, and any state that tries to secede peacefully... well, you know that story. But, of course, this irrelevancy is but a diversion from Israel being an occupying power of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). The rather silly claim that the OPT is not an occupied territory is like the rather silly Bush administration claim that the United States did not engage in torture; or detainees are neither combatants nor civilians, but some mysterious other, never before known to man, and therefore no law applies, not International Law and not the Constitution. Such claims are based on selected government paid lawyers prostituting themselves to render some absurd legal opinion that their government leader wanted. In the case of Israel, it is the Levy Report. This report has never been approved by the Israeli legislature and it is contrary to the opinions of Israeli courts. From the Levy Report conclusions: In addition, the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, regarding transfer of populations, cannot be considered applicable, and were never intended to apply to the type of settlement activity carried out by Israel in Judea and Samaria. Therefore and according to international law, Israelis have the lawful right to settle in Judea and Samaria, and consequently, and the establishment of settlements cannot in and of itself be considered to be illegal. That is complete, total, utter bullshit. There is nothing "unique and sui generis" about the Israeli occupation. Sui generis, "Of it own kind or class; i.e., the only one of its own kind; peculiar." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.) Israel started a war, occupied the territory, and wants what does not belong to it. This is not the first or only time in the recorded history of mankind that this has happened. International law applies; the Israeli government just does not like what it says. As quoted in my #21: The Supreme Court of Israel, as well as the International Court of Justice, have found that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law. Adhering to the absurd claim that the OPT is not an occupied territory infers that it, or some ill defined part of it, belongs to Israel. Assuming that it has morphed into the land of Israel, the inescapable result is that Israel is a racist, apartheid state. The Palestinians would be of the land of Israel, but held in capativity as a degraded class of people who are deprived of voting, freedom of movement, freedom of commerce, and generally treated as a class of sub-human beings. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0701/S00070/shulamit-aloni-there-is-apartheid-in-israel.htm Wednesday, 10 January 2007, 3:22 pm Shulamit Aloni: Indeed There Is Apartheid In Israel Middle East News Service [Middle East News Service comments: During the summer holiday season in Australia we are operating in a holiday mode. It is envisaged that later this month several compilations dealing with major issues will be posted out. One of these will deal with the kerfuffle caused by Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine – Peace not Apartheid. Actual comments on Aloni’s and other contributions will be dealt with at that time. But in the meantime, some work needs to be done like this translation of an item from Yediot Acharonot, Israel’s largest circulating newspaper, which appeared in the Hebrew Ynet but not in the English-language Ynetnews. Translator comments are in square brackets. For those unfamiliar with Aloni she is an Israel Prize Laureate who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin – Sol Salbe.] Hebrew original: Indeed there is Apartheid in Israel A new order issued by the GOC Central command bans the conveyance of Palestinians in Israeli vehicles. Such a blatant violation of the right to travel joins the long list of humans rights violations carried out by Israel in the [Occupied] Territories. Shulamit Aloni Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades. If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night – all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way. On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. “Why?” I asked the soldier. “It’s an order – this is a Jews-only road”, he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. “It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?” [snip]
The Israeli government chafes from the comparison to South Africa as economic shunning would cause lots of grief. While there is a right of return for Jews with no prior connection to the area, the same is denied for Arabs with centuries of ties to the area before they became displaced people. Of course, letting them return as equals, with citizenship in Israel, might give Israel a muslim prime minister.
There are no replies to Comment # 32. End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"if he was returned to office he would never establish a Palestinian state"
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
That's not his call.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#4)
"It most certainly is his call. His country."
#9. To: misterwhite (#7)
Israel also signed the 4th Geneva Convention. Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
"There is no occupied land"
#16. To: misterwhite (#11)
#21. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#16)
What part of fuck the UN do you not understand?
Applicability of the term "occupied"
The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Art. 42.
Assistant Legal Advisor Department of State
Volume 1 Multilateral 1776-1917
Department of State Publication 8407
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1968
#23. To: nolu chan (#21)
What part of occupied territory do you not understand.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#23)
What part of occupied territory do you not understand.
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Our basic conclusion is that from the point of view of international law, the classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis historic and legal circumstances of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria spanning over decades.
In the cases before the Israeli High Court of Justice the government has agreed that the military commander’s authority is anchored in the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs says that the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention and certain parts of Additional Protocol I reflect customary international law that is applicable in the occupied territories.
Shulamit Aloni: There Is Apartheid In Israel
Opinion: Middle East News Service
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3346283,00.html
#30. To: nolu chan (#29)
"and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?”
#32. To: misterwhite (#30)
Replies to Comment # 32.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]