> The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken.
I think this is a bit unfair. Whether you agree or disagree, opponents of Israel have been pretty clear that they think the settlements violate article 49 of the fourth geneva convention. Specificly "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Sometimes people also argue that the pipelining of Israeli law into settlements violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I think the argument is that you can only distinguish between citizens and non-citizens on your own territory and thus the way Israeli law is applied in settlements but not outside them is a violation. I'm not super familiar with the argument so i might be mis-stating it. I also think its a bit of a catch-22 since Israel isn't allowed to legislate for the Palestinians either. Regardless it is a rule that they point to.
So i don't think its fair to say opponents of Israeli settlements just claim illegality without pointing to which laws. They do point to laws and rules.
But see, we are already past the "they don't ever say which rule" and on to, they do say which rule but their interpretation is incorrect (and hey i even agree with you on that part some of the time).
> The 49th article of the fourth Geneva convention is the usual answer to that question, but it is wrong. Israel does not "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies", every single Jew in the West Bank got up and returned to or moved to the West Bank of their own accord.
While i agree it is not clear cut in the geneva convention, generally the argument is voluntary transfer is still a transfer. The prohibition is not just about preventing people from being moved against their will but also about preventing attempts to change the demographic composition of an area. See also what the red cross says about it
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule130
I'm not really here to argue these points, i don't necessarily even agree with all of them, i just think you're being a bit straw-many. Arguments are more powerful if you engage with the strongest form of the counter-argument, not the weakest.
> Arguments are more powerful if you engage with the strongest form of the counter-argument, not the weakest.
Your are correct, thank you. I'll emphasize that there was no international concern expressed when Jordan changed the demographic composition of Jerusalem and the West Bank by expelling the Jews. Only when Jews moved back to Jerusalem and the West Bank, after 19 years of absence, is there suddenly concern the demographic composition of of the city.
Who cares? My point is the international community regards the settlements as illegal and if Israel cared about that they would immediately and completely withdraw.
And my point is that the international community, which mostly comprise of Arab nations, Muslim nations, or nations that rely on Arab oil, has been shown to levy accusations and resolutions against the state that the Arab and Muslim nations are united to destroy.
If there was merit to the claim that Jews building houses in the West Bank is illegal, they would have stated which law is being transgressed.
Out of curiosity, do you think Israel could 'find a law being broken' if thousand of Palestinians started building houses, towns, farms, and exclusive roads inside Israel - all protected by Palestinian soldiers?
Or would it just be so obviously illegal to adults?
First, the easy one. The only exclusive roads are exclusive to Palestinians. There are no Jew-only roads, despite our enemies saying it again and again.
Second, the other easy one. Your question is predicated on the assumption that those building houses, towns, and farms are doing so against the will of the body which administrates the territory. Jews in the West Bank build in Area C - other than a tiny extremist minority whose structures are then wiped away by the Israeli authorities. I'm certain if you're partaking in this conversation then you are familiar enough with the administrative divisions of the West Bank to know that Area C was designated by agreement with the Palestinian Authority for Israeli civil development.
There's two ways you could counter my argument - I'm interested to see which one you choose! The Shabbat is coming in soon, so I'll answer you on Sunday or Monday. Shabbat Shalom.
What's wrong with that? Does the United States not have US-only roads (that Mexican citizens in Mexico) can't drive on.
Those roads link Areas C. Either you know what that means so I don't need to explain it, or you don't know enough about the agreements between the PA and the state of Israel to discuss this. Just in case you are in the later camp, as I stated, there are Palestinian-only roads in Areas A. Those are found throughout the West Bank, everywhere. Only in a single place exists the Israeli-only road. So the argument about "Jew-only roads" is not only a lie, it is an inversion of true state of affairs.
the comparison id imagine is the highway from Washington to alaska.
the americans paid to build it, but its a canadian road going through canadian territory and its canada who decides who drives on it, and thats not by citizenship but by licence. people with recognized licences can drive on it.
If I'm not mistaken, and please correct me if I am mistaken because I've not been to that area, the road in question connects Area C to Jerusalem. There is no utility for anybody to use that road who is not entering or leaving Area C.
Here's the third way - acknowledging that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal under international law, regardless of whether they have Israeli planning permission.
It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention. These settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in breach of international declarations.
That the resolution did not include any sanction or coercive measure and was adopted under the non-binding Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter is simply a matter of real politik dealing with Genocide, and is irrelevant to the overall judgement.
* The International Court of Justice
Israel sleigh-of-hand in designating "occupied" territories as "disputed" by virtue of the fact that "there were no established sovereigns in the West Bank or Gaza Strip prior to the Six Day War" was roundly rejected in the International Court of Justice over 20 years ago
//The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, when two conditions are fulfilled, namely that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized), and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties, then the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties.//
I'll address only the first page of that document, it should be enough.
> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by
force,
This is the most nuanced line of the document, as Jordan attacked Israel. Up until about two years ago, even Arabs (Gazans and West Bankers) would clearly state that Egypt started the war - that narrative is now that Israel started the war with Egypt. Let's settle on it being in dispute - if you're familiar with the events then we could argue either way. If you're not familiar with the events, then I'll win that part based on causus belli. In either case, Jordan attempted to acquire territory by invading Israel. Israel won on the Jordanian front, but it was the Jordanians who were fighting to acquire territory.
If you consider that a weak argument, then consider also that the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel were the borders of Mandatory Palestine by principal of Uti possidetis juris. This was justification for cross-border raids for decades - both before and after the 1967 war. The Israeli-Jordanian frontier was a cease-fire line, not an international border. Thus, the world did not recognize the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank as legal - only Iraq did (the kings of Jordan and Iraq were brothers). Thus, Israel did not "acquire territory" on the Jordanian front, rather they recovered the occupied West Bank (occupied by Jordan). OK, actually, Israel did actually acquire some territory on the east side of the river. We left that area in I think 1994 or so when we made peace with Jordan.
> Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide
scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of
12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the
International Court of Justice,
Here is where legitimate condemnation of Israel can begin. Israel did not annex the territory it recovered. The reasons is quite clear - despite repeated cries to the contrary, Israel does generally not expel populations. Yes, there were expulsions, I'm not blind to that. But you are aware that the Israeli side states that the Arabs who left Israel in 1948 did so at the beheast of Arab politicians requets - and there is ample evidence of this. Yet, many didn't leave and Israel became 20% Arab. Contrast with the West Bank, which Jordan ethnically cleansed of Jews after the 1948 war. Yet you hear no cries about that ethnic cleansing - only cries when Jews return to the farms they were evicted from by the Jordanians.
> Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition,
character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East
Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements,
transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and
displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law
and relevant resolutions,
This is where people should start opening their eyes. Jerusalem had already been Jewish majority for decades even before the British Mandate for Palestine started. Jordan completely altered the demographic composition, character and status of Jerusalem when it ethnically cleansed the Jews after the 1948 war - so for 19 years out of 3000 years there were no Jews in that area. Yet, when the Jews return (after only 19 years) that is considered us altering the demographic composition,
character and status? Any objective observer sees the farce.
> Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are
dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967
lines,
This is true. Jews building houses on the West Bank does imperil the ability to form a racist, no-Jew-allowed ethnostate on the West Bank. Why progressive leftists think that such a state is the proper solution to the conflict is beyond me.
> Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its
resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including
“natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since
March 2001,
This document is from 2015, no? So because seventy years prior to the writing of the document there were 19 years of no Jews in the West Bank, all Jews who returned must stop building houses? And dismantle the prior 14 years' worth of building, even though those houses were built in areas that the Palestinian leadership and Israel agreed are set aside for Israeli civil development, and in return the Palestinians got areas for their own civil development (which there is no call to dismantle)? As an objective outsider, how does this even make sense to you?
> Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian
Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all
those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the
confiscation of illegal weapons
Did any member of the Quartet (UN, USA, EU, and Russia) begin, not to mention maintain, any operation aimed at confronting those engaged in terror? Or dismantling terrorist capabilities? Or confiscate illegal weapons? No, only two of those bodies were active in the holy land at the time. The UN "peacekeepers" in Lebanon abetted and filmed Hezbollah's cross-border raid in 2006, in which Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped. They didn't film to help, they actually refused to hand over the tapes to Israel. And the EU actually funded (and still funds) the movement of Arabs from Areas A and B to Areas C, in contradition to the agreements made between the PA and the state of Israel. I speak Arabic, I have been to West Bank Arab villages (I won't do it today, I'd be murdered, but I've done it in the past). Many of the hastily-built Arab encampments in Areas C have plaques describing how the EU and member nations have funded construction. The residents will tell you unabashedly from which Areas A and B villages they came from.
> But you are aware that the Israeli side states that the Arabs who left Israel in 1948 did so at the beheast of Arab politicians requets - and there is ample evidence of this. Yet, many didn't leave and Israel became 20% Arab.
Bro really said: "the Palestinians did the nakba to themselves"...
Well, don't take my word for it. Maybe these are people that you trust more than me.
> "We brought disaster upon the refugees, by calling on them to leave their homes. We promised them that their expulsion would be temporary, and that they would return within a few days. We had to admit that we were wrong."
- Syrian Prime Minister Khalid AlAzm
> "Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes, while it is we who made them leave."
- Same guy, Syrian PM Khalid AlAzm
> "The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."
- Jordanian newspaper Falastin (Interesting fact, if I'm not mistaken the name of this very newspaper was the first Arab use of the word Falastin - way back in 1911!)
> "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."
Obviously you can find quotes to support such a position. Just like I can run around quoting Israeli PMs about how Palestinians are rats and how they must all be killed. You have to look at the whole of the evidence, not individual quotes.
You're correct, of course. Let's look at the Israeli declaration of independence:
> WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
> WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
AFAIK no but the person you responded to is dogwhistling by repeatedly referencing "arab" and "muslim". They're using it to imply that not only does the UN not matter, they're also positioning these words as the implicit enemy.
It's a bad faith way to approach this argument, so asking logical questions won't make a difference and will tire you out. That's the core strategy behind that behaviour.
I think a more charitable read would be they are claiming that Israel's geopolitical rivals have undue influence in certain UN organs and are using that influence to unfairly single out Israel.
Its not exactly a crazy claim. The UN is a political entity, its not above the influence of geopolitics. The former secretary general of the UN, Ban ki moon at one point (quite a while ago now) said that "Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel".
If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.
