Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned


But the settlers are not an obstacle to peace to the extent that the government of Israel is willing to dismantle the settlements and the settlers agree to go. They settle the land now knowing that tomorrow they will be asked to leave. They are assuming the risk of financial loss - that is, unless the Israeli government will compensate them in some fashion.

The militant settlers do not accept that someday they will have to go or the risk of financial loss. They are where they are because they perceive themselves as heroes fighting for the land that is theirs. You can be damned sure that if their settlements are closed they will scream for compensation.

If, however, they are willing to revolt against their own government, then the do represent a problem. But I hardly think this is the case.

Perhaps you haven't read about Baruch Goldstein, the Committee for Road Safety or Kach( http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/kach.htm ). However, as I have stated they are already an obstacle because of low level attacks on arabs and actively expanding settlements. The Israeli government is remiss in not putting them in their place as soon as possible as they only hurt the situation.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They should certainly not dismantle any settlements which are contigious with the rest of Isreal and the Palestinian borders should absorb as many contigous Arab settlements as possible with all outlaying Arab settlements also being dismantled.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we want population exchanges then let's settle the issue now and forever.

This is largely impossible because most arab settlements contiguous with the West Bank have been surrounded by Jewish settlements to isolate them. Also arab settlements within Israel proper usually predate 1948 or have been established legally, as usually the authorities are quite thorough in stopping illegal arab settlement.

The Jewish settlements however are quite clearly illegal and have been from the beginning, only the most foolish settler wouldn't have known this.

[Oerdin]

Who exactly has the authority to declare the actions of a sovereign nation are legal or illegal? Certainly not the UN.

[gsmoove23]

If Israel is a member state of the UN then yes, the UN. Perhaps Israel should opt out before it completely invalidates it. Certainly since it is the org that validated Israel in the first place.

[Oerdin]

You mean like China has invalidated it by not withdrawing from Korea or Tibet like the UN ordered? Or what about how Zimbabwe, Congo, Rowanda, Yugoslavia and a million others? The Un has never had the force of law it is and always has been nothing more then window dressing for the Great Powers.

BTW Show me the UNSC (not general assembly which is a total joke) resolution which ORDERS Israel to do anything as opposed to requests, asks, or calls for. I'll give you a hint...It doesn't exist.

[gsmoove23]

http://electronicintifada.net/refere...c_page89.shtml
http://electronicintifada.net/refere...c_page90.shtml

Some interesting passages...

Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949

Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East,

3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

Adopted at the 2159th meeting by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States of America).

Surprisingly they couldn't bring themselves to veto. Probably because it has always been the opinion of the US government that these settlements were illegal as well.

The UNSC quite clearly states that the settlements are illegal and calls on all member states to not assist or involve themselves in occupied territory settlements.

I meant that if its the position of Israel that the UN is meaningless then perhaps it should withdraw its membership, which it hasn't since it joined in 1949. Likewise for the US.

[Oerdin]

There is no order there is the words "calls upon" which is not at all forceful. It's kind of like asking and if someone is asking then they can be told no.

[gsmoove23]

I never said they ordered anything, simply that settlements are illegal which they quite clearly state and which certainly could be construed as an order.

[Panag]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


This is largely impossible because most arab settlements contiguous with the West Bank have been surrounded by Jewish settlements to isolate them. Also arab settlements within Israel proper usually predate 1948 or have been established legally, as usually the authorities are quite thorough in stopping illegal arab settlement.

The Jewish settlements however are quite clearly illegal and have been from the beginning, only the most foolish settler wouldn't have known this.

wake up and learn the facts , ....

if you believe that the info from that stupid terror site is correct , .......

illegal , no , my house aint illegal

you have no idea what so ever what a settler is or wheter ore not a settlement is illegal , .... so please dont post such stuff , .....

that is foolish , what to settle there , i have a house in a settlement that i bought a couple years ago and rented out since i am traveling most of the time , ..... guess who rents it , .... a north african Jew , .....

as for the rest , take a look at the site of the un and the Israeli side , ..... before you post some complete crap that is funded with blood money , ...... a source that wants all jews and orhodox catholics , christians , druze and kopt to be pushed in the sea aint exactly a serious source to quote , .....

and the darn topic is one al dura not the settlements , if you want a thread on that , .....

[Panag]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I never said they ordered anything, simply that settlements are illegal which they quite clearly state and which certainly could be construed as an order.

they are not illegal !

[gsmoove23]

So they're legal because you bought a house? Thats rich. If you want a full list of UN resolutions that are clear on the matter you can find it here, http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...esolutions.pdf . Then, take the resolution numbers and look them up here, http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm . Perhaps that will satisfy you and you'll come back saying the UN doesn't really matter, of course why would I care what you think since you're obviously biased having investment in the settlements. Beyond that its common sense, its not Israeli land.

PS - You forgot to say have a nice day.

[Az]

ohh, www.electronicintifada.net

[gsmoove23]

You can find the exact same documents I posted on the un.org site above. Jeez, its not like it was a news piece.

[Az]

If there are better sources, don't link from it.

[gsmoove23]

What man, you trying to stifle the truth?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Who exactly has the authority to declare the actions of a sovereign nation are legal or illegal? Certainly not the UN.

Uhhh, remember Iraq? The UN certainly does have the authority, if those actions violate some established norm of international law. And Israeli sovereignty isn't legally recognized beyond the 1948 borders - Israel (legally, not de facto) only has occupying power status beyond those borders.

[Az]

yep.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You mean like China has invalidated it by not withdrawing from Korea or Tibet like the UN ordered? Or what about how Zimbabwe, Congo, Rowanda, Yugoslavia and a million others? The Un has never had the force of law it is and always has been nothing more then window dressing for the Great Powers.

BTW Show me the UNSC (not general assembly which is a total joke) resolution which ORDERS Israel to do anything as opposed to requests, asks, or calls for. I'll give you a hint...It doesn't exist.

"Force of law" and "force necessary to enforce the law" are two different things. Let's say you live in a very small town in a rural county and 15 squatters with fully automatic weapons move into your house. The local law dogs might not have enough power to enforce trespassing, burglary and assault laws until the Feds or state troopers show up, but they are still valid laws.

[Az]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


"Force of law" and "force necessary to enforce the law" are two different things. Let's say you live in a very small town in a rural county and 15 squatters with fully automatic weapons move into your house. The local law dogs might not have enough power to enforce trespassing, burglary and assault laws until the Feds or state troopers show up, but they are still valid laws.

So, where are the feds?

[MichaeltheGreat]

The UN doesn't have any unless we provide them, and we're your boys, so you don't have to worry about it.

[Az]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Uhhh, remember Iraq? The UN certainly does have the authority, if those actions violate some established norm of international law. And Israeli sovereignty isn't legally recognized beyond the 1948 borders - Israel (legally, not de facto) only has occupying power status beyond those borders.

when and by what document were the 1948 ceasefire lines recognized as legal boundaries???? UNSC 242 stated that all states in the region (including Israel) were entitled to secure and recognized boundaries, implicitly acknowledging that Israel did not have recognized boundaries with the West Bank or Gaza.
The UN may refer to Israel as occupier, but that contradicts their own position on Israels boundaries, IIUC. In fact the territories are "disputed", and final disposition awaits a negotiated settlement. The US has opposed settlement expansion not because the settlements are illegal under international law (which they are not) but because by unilaterally establishing facts on the ground, they (arguably) make discussions of territorial compromise more difficult, and thus are "obstacles to peace"

[GePap]

Given that israel denies citizenship to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, perhaps even they know that they are currently occupiers, not the legal owners of that land.

[Edan]

Yeah, the '48 borders were never recognized as permanent borders but cease fire lines.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


"Force of law" and "force necessary to enforce the law" are two different things. Let's say you live in a very small town in a rural county and 15 squatters with fully automatic weapons move into your house. The local law dogs might not have enough power to enforce trespassing, burglary and assault laws until the Feds or state troopers show up, but they are still valid laws.

but the local law dogs could at least issue an order that the squatters depart. In this case no such order has been issued - cause the relevant legal body - the UNSC has NOT determined that this is a case of squatting, rather than a case of disputed possesion.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Given that israel denies citizenship to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, perhaps even they know that they are currently occupiers, not the legal owners of that land.

Well, Israel offered citizenship to the Palestinians living in east Jerusalem when it annexed it, but most places don't recognize east Jerusalem as part of Israel.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Given that israel denies citizenship to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, perhaps even they know that they are currently occupiers, not the legal owners of that land.

no they are disputed territories - to which Israel has a claim - however in view of the dispute, and the need to achieve peace by a territorial compromise, they have refrained from annexing the land, and have administered it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


when and by what document were the 1948 ceasefire lines recognized as legal boundaries???? UNSC 242 stated that all states in the region (including Israel) were entitled to secure and recognized boundaries, implicitly acknowledging that Israel did not have recognized boundaries with the West Bank or Gaza.
The UN may refer to Israel as occupier, but that contradicts their own position on Israels boundaries, IIUC. In fact the territories are "disputed", and final disposition awaits a negotiated settlement. The US has opposed settlement expansion not because the settlements are illegal under international law (which they are not) but because by unilaterally establishing facts on the ground, they (arguably) make discussions of territorial compromise more difficult, and thus are "obstacles to peace"

They were recognized in 1950. And the US postion has been that settlements are a violation of the Geneva conventions, which do prohibit an occupying power from resettling its population into occupied territory. Israel is the only state that claims that the Geneva convention does not hold for the occupied territories. Your reading of 242 is rahter incomplete, givenm the call for Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied. Both Jordan and Egypt passed the buck to the Palestinians as far as resolving the territorial status of the West bank and Gaza, but the deals they made with Israel did not grant Israel a final claim over Gaza or teh west bank. Until israel has a piece of paper in it, and agreement signed with the Palestinians, about borders, then it is an occupying power, and subject to the geneva conventions, wihch clearly outlaw something like settlements.

[Eli]

Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?

Skanky! Get him boys!

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


no they are disputed territories - to which Israel has a claim - however in view of the dispute, and the need to achieve peace by a territorial compromise, they have refrained from annexing the land, and have administered it.

No,a s i post above, they are occupied. israel has no civil authority over them, only military. That means it's axtions are ot be judged using the Geneva conventions, which make settlements illegal.