Nikki Haley denies Gaza violence is related to new US Embassy in Jersualem

I already told you that I never claimed that the ICC does have jurisdiction.

Name one other place that is a "military occupation" in a way similar to Israels Military Occupation of the West Bank - that is not described as a military occupation by the UN ?

 

Dude... everybody says it's occupied. Even the Israeli courts!

In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in the Six-Day War. UN Security Council Resolution 242 that followed called for withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict in exchange for peace and mutual recognition. Since 1979 the United Nations Security Council,[28] the United Nations General Assembly,[23] the United States,[29] the EU,[30] the International Court of Justice,[31]and the International Committee of the Red Cross[24] refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as occupied Palestinian territory or the occupied territories. General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area. In the same vein the Israeli Supreme Court stated in the 2004 Beit Sourik case that: The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica).


And all that time... from 1967.... Israel has been in complete ill faith and counter productive for a peace progress... by deliberately do the complete opposite for no reason at all,.. than to thieve and to oppress. And with Israel,.. it's actually the Israeli Jews. I fail to see how Israeli Arabs and Christians are to blame for this. It's them lot with their religion who supports even genocide to thieve the land of Canaan.

And 10% of the Jews who live of fresh ethnically cleansed land in the West Bank, are American Jews. Says plenty how AIPAC - US - Israel work with their illegal war criminal ways.

 

Of the hundreds of territory disputes throughout the world, only when Israel is involved does the UN describe the Administering Power as a "military occupier".

We are all well aware of how the Left uses language to assume points as well as the Lefts constant application of unfair double standards. You are fooling no one!

The Palestinians will secure a State by peaceful bilateral negotiations not unilateral violence. This is known.

 

"Everybody"? This is a favored attempted trick by the flailing left, to pretend that facts are fixed by hand waving.
FROM "OCCUPIED TERRITORIES" TO "DISPUTED TERRITORIES"

"Occupation" as an Accusation
The Terminology of Other Territorial Disputes
No Previously-Recognized Sovereignty in the Territories
Aggression vs. Self-Defense
Israeli Rights in the West Bank
After Oslo, Can the Territories be Characterized as "Occupied"?

"Occupation" as an Accusation

At the heart of the Palestinian diplomatic struggle against Israel is the repeated assertion that the Palestinians of the West Bank are resisting "occupation." Unfortunately for the Palestinian spokesmen, they also have to contend with the growing international consensus against terrorism as a political instrument.

This language and logic have also penetrated the diplomatic struggles in the United Nations. During August 2001, a Palestinian draft resolution at the UN Security Council repeated the commonly used Palestinian reference to the West Bank as "occupied Palestinian territories." References to Israel's "foreign occupation" also appeared in the Durban Draft Declaration of the UN World Conference Against Racism. The Libyan ambassador to the United Nations, in the name of the Arab Group Caucus, reiterated on October 1, 2001, what Palestinian spokesmen had been saying on network television: "The Arab Group stresses its determination to confront any attempt to classify resistance to occupation as an act of terrorism."

Three clear purposes seem to be served by the repeated references to "occupation" or "occupied Palestinian territories."

• First, Palestinian spokesmen hope to create a political context to explain and even justify the Palestinians' adoption of violence and terrorism.
• Second, the Palestinian demand of Israel to "end the occupation" does not leave any room for territorial compromise in the West Bank as suggested by the original language of UN Security Council Resolution 242.
• Third, the use of "occupied Palestinian territories" denies any Israeli claim to the land: had the more neutral language of "disputed territories" been used, then the Palestinians and Israel would be on an even playing field with equal rights.

Additionally, by presenting Israel as a "foreign occupier," advocates of the Palestinian cause can delegitimize the Jewish historical attachment to Israel. This has become a focal point of Palestinian diplomatic efforts since the failed 2000 Camp David Summit, but particularly since the UN Durban Conference in 2001. Indeed, at Durban, the delegitimization campaign against Israel exploited the language of "occupation" in order to invoke the memories of Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War and link them to Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Terminology of Other Territorial Disputes

The politically-loaded term "occupied territories" or "occupation" seems to apply only to Israel and is hardly ever used when other territorial disputes are discussed, especially by interested third parties. For example, the U.S. Department of State refers to Kashmir as "disputed areas." Similarly in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the State Department describes the patch of Azerbaijan claimed as an independent republic by indigenous Armenian separatists as "the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh."

Despite the 1975 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice establishing that Western Sahara was not under Moroccan territorial sovereignty, it is not commonly accepted to describe the Moroccan military incursion in the former Spanish colony as an act of "occupation." In a more recent decision of the International Court of Justice from March 2001, the Persian Gulf island of Zubarah, claimed by both Qatar and Bahrain, was described by the Court as "disputed territory," until it was finally allocated to Qatar.

Of course each situation has its own unique history, but in a variety of other territorial disputes from northern Cyprus, to the Kurile Islands, to Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf -- which have involved some degree of armed conflict -- the term "occupied territories" is not commonly used in international discourse.

Thus, the case of the West Bank appears to be a special exception in recent history, for in many other territorial disputes since the Second World War, in which the land in question was under the previous sovereignty of another state, the term "occupied territory" has not been applied to the territory that had come under one side's military control as a result of armed conflict.

No Previously-Recognized Sovereignty in the Territories

Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."

In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

At Jordan's insistence, the 1949 Armistice Line, that constituted the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, was not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (Article II.2).

As noted above, in many other cases in recent history in which recognized international borders were crossed in armed conflicts and sovereign territory seized, the language of "occupation" was not used -- even in clear-cut cases of aggression. Yet in the case of the West Bank and Gaza, where no internationally recognized sovereign control previously existed, the stigma of Israel as an "occupier" has gained currency.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

These silly language games fool no one. Today these things are too easily looked up. Everyone has an international library in the hands, Silly!

 

So you avoid answering the question - coming up with one example that supports your claim and then try to demonize the messenger by labeling me a Leftist.

The idea that Palestinian violence is "unilateral" is a preposterous falsehood.

Avoidance, name calling, denial and falsehoods are not an argument for much.

 

Indeed... everybody that matters. That is.. the entire WORLD. The HIGHEST courts of the WORLD. The highest court of ISRAEL.

And you put up an opinion piece... that ends with:
"The opinions expressed by the authors of Viewpoints do not necessarily reflect those of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs."
And Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs... is just a bloody think tank. It is pure zionist propaganda.
That organisation demands Israel to permanently violently oppress Palestinians in the WB and Gaza, for eternity.

/facedesk.

 

Israel's view matters. They hold and administer disputed territory that was used to launch a war of aggression. Resolution will not be imposed by others or by unilateral acts of terror. The issue will be peacefully resolved through peaceful bilateral negotiation, including Israel, which you so hatefully dismiss.

Aggression vs. Self-Defense

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

Here the historical sequence of events on June 5, 1967, is critical, for Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines.

• Jordanian attacks began at 10:00 a.m.; an Israeli warning to Jordan was passed through the UN at 11:00 a.m.;
• Jordanian attacks nonetheless persisted, so that Israeli military action only began at 12:45 p.m.
• Additionally, Iraqi forces had crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank.
• Under such circumstances, the temporary armistice boundaries of 1949 lost all validity the moment Jordanian forces revoked the armistice and attacked.
• Israel thus took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war.

The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history and attempt to resolve the dispute through unilateral acts of terror. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

These facts are easily checked.
You fool No One!

 

Israel's supreme court matters

This think tanks opinion does not matter.

As you noted.... Look up "Jurisdiction"

 

But I have, several times, and included links.

Israeli Rights in the Disputed Territory

Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles -- Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This deliberate language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. For example, the Soviet Union attempted to introduce the word "all" before the word "territories" in the British draft resolution that became Resolution 242. Lord Caradon, the British UN ambassador, resisted these efforts. Since the Soviets tried to add the language of full withdrawal but failed, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the withdrawal clause contained in Resolution 242, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council.

Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart.

Actually, the last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The members of the League of Nations did not create the rights of the Jewish people, but rather recognized a pre-existing right, that had been expressed by the 2,000-year-old quest of the Jewish people to re-establish their homeland.

Moreover, Israel's rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Article 80 established that nothing in the UN Charter should be "construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments." These rights were unaffected by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947 -- the Partition Plan -- which was a non-binding recommendation that was rejected, in any case, by the Palestinians and the Arab states.

Given these fundamental sources of international legality, Israel possesses legal rights with respect to the West Bank that appear to be ignored by those international observers who repeat the term "occupied territories" without any awareness of Israeli territorial claims. Even if Israel only seeks "secure boundaries" that cover part of the West Bank, there is a world of difference between a situation in which Israel approaches the international community as a "foreign occupier" with no territorial rights, and one in which Israel has strong historical rights to the land that were recognized by the main bodies serving as the source of international legitimacy in the previous century.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

The Palestinians will successfully resolve the issue through peaceful bilateral negotiation.
The Palestinians will never dictate a resolution through unilateral acts of terror.
This is known!

 

You claimed that there were other nations that had a military occupation in some "disputed territory" that the UN did not claim was a military occupation.

I already know that Israel is a military occupation. Your mission - should you choose to accept it - is to back up your claim by coming up with a nation other than Israel that is militarily occupying a disputed territory where the UN does not refer to it as a military occupation.

 

maybe American leftists should be forced to donate their homes to the Injuns.

 

I already did.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

 

Your link does not support your claim. It does not give an example of another nation that has a military occupation of some territory - where the UN does not claim it is a military occupation.

 

Yes it does.

 

What nation is mentioned that fulfills the criteria is mentioned in your link ? Post from your link the part that supports your claim..

 

Nimrata Randhawa was born a Sihk, and Sihks have very bad relations with Muslims.

hmmm...

 

From the mouth of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas? Oh yeah, that's VERY impartial isn't it.

 

Uhh... you managed to not see 4 entire paragraphs?

The politically-loaded term "occupied territories" or "occupation" seems to apply only to Israel and is hardly ever used when other territorial disputes are discussed, especially by interested third parties. For example, the U.S. Department of State refers to Kashmir as "disputed areas."5Similarly in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the State Department describes the patch of Azerbaijan claimed as an independent republic by indigenous Armenian separatists as "the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh."6

Despite the 1975 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice establishing that Western Sahara was not under Moroccan territorial sovereignty, it is not commonly accepted to describe the Moroccan military incursion in the former Spanish colony as an act of "occupation." In a more recent decision of the International Court of Justice from March 2001, the Persian Gulf island of Zubarah, claimed by both Qatar and Bahrain, was described by the Court as "disputed territory," until it was finally allocated to Qatar.7

Of course each situation has its own unique history, but in a variety of other territorial disputes from northern Cyprus, to the Kurile Islands, to Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf -- which have involved some degree of armed conflict -- the term "occupied territories" is not commonly used in international discourse.8

Thus, the case of the West Bank appears to be a special exception in recent history, for in many other territorial disputes since the Second World War, in which the land in question was under the previous sovereignty of another state, the term "occupied territory" has not been applied to the territory that had come under one side's military control as a result of armed conflict.
​

 

Thank you for posting this however, some of the examples given are ridiculous. Cyprus ? come on. Some indigenous Armenian separatists ? Really now. It is not like these people are behind some fence with military police running around persecuting them and bulldozing their houses and stealing their land.

That's the difference. South Africa during Apartheid would be a more appropriate comparison - mind you .. the UN probably described that as more of an occupation.

The fact of the matter is that there is no "dispute" (except by the occupying power) that the land is Palestinian land .. as per the agreement by which Israel was "allowed" to exist.

 

Green lines are not blue lines. Where exactly the boundaries are will be determined in peaceful bilateral negotiation not in unilateral acts of Palestinian terror. With a few minor adjustments to the Green lines, Palestinian neighborhoods now in Israel can be included in the New States with offsetting lines including Jewish neighborhoods now in the West Bank, in Israel.

When the Palestinians love their children more than they love killing the Jews, there will be peace.

These might not be the best dolls for Palestinians to give their children if they want to live in a peaceful indepenent natoin that respects it's neighbors borders.

 

The UN PLAN was nothing more than that, a plan. Not an agreement. A plan never implemented.
Israel, like most every country simply declared its existence and has exercised sovereignty over the land ever since.

 

I think we have beat this one into the pavement and now you are wandering way too far down the partisan rabbit hole. Israel commits far more acts of unilateral terror than the Palestinians.

The rest of your post goes on to demonize Palestinians - generalizing the traits of a few onto all - and posting defamatory pictures on the basis of a false premise.

 

The line has already been drawn. All of the Israeli civilians in the WB including East Jerusalem aint in Israel. The entire world has been exceptionally clear about that. That is why all them condemnations come flying in. Colonizing occupied territory is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

There can't be piece until Israeli Jews move their children from a country that aint theirs outside Israel, and from property that aint theirs from inside Israel. It's proposterous to think that you can first steal something with the barrel of the gun, keep it, and have a peaceful relationship with your victim.

 

That is not so much the problem. The problem is, that Jews ethnic cleansed 92% of the Arabs out the country. It is part of their religion.

 

No, it has NOT. At the Arab's insistence, the lines drawn where the Armies stopped were NEVER recognized as permenant international boundaries, that is why they are Green and not Blue, Silly!

Palestinian Jews in the West Bank are in the West Bank, Silly!

Will not forcibly impose a solution. A solution will be the result of peaceful bilateral negotiation, not unilateral Palestinian violence.

Palestinian Jews in the West Bank are no more "Colonialists" that Palestinian Arabs are.

Palestinian Jews have every right to be there just as Palestinian Arabs do.