Pure Zionism by the right in Israel

it was a historical reference, only.

The ICJ says the settlements are illegal and Judea & Samaria is occupied by Israel.

- - - Updated - - -

yes it does, you just deny it even though its truth.

this is why Israel will fail at the ICC.

 

Once again:

the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate. Now, if the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate, then it means that they used what was written in the Mandate that says that the Jews have the right to settle in "Palestine", which means that if they used a statement from the Mandate (when they wrote in Article 73 that it's cunstituted "Palestine"), then they need also to refered the West Bank as it was refered in the Mandate, which is a place that Jews can settle, which makes the argument that "the settlements are illegal", as false argument

Once again:
The only time that Judea and Samaria was written together with "occupied territories" was here:

And after this the words "occupation" and "annaxation" is regarding Jordan:

Then there is reference from the Court to the person letter (the same letter that you talking about). But they refer it to the private land and the Court didnt deny what the person said about the ownership of the Land of Israel:

You can see that the Court didnt deny what the person said about the ownership about the Land of Israel, but they refered it to the private property. which is refering to the private land that Elon Moreh was existed on.

And to rainforce the Court claim about "denying the private property of those who are not allies" the judge qouted from Leviticus.
And if that's not satisfying you, there's also this:

Also in this part you can see that the Court isnt denying what the person said about the ownership of the Land of Israel, and they just rainforced it by recalling the Mandate. The Court did say that the civil rights need to be respected! Which means by regarding the "civil rights" they talking about the land that Elon Moreh was existed on.

Source: http://www.hamoked.org/files/2010/1670_eng.pdf

 

Then you do not consider the IDF to be in Par with the best armies of the world... may be a little better, perhaps?

 

Historical reference, my left foot... The Mandate for Palestine is <Israel of today in addition to Jordan of today>... THIS IS HISTORICAL REFERENCE!!!

All other is the fruit of your fecund imagination.

 

historical reference, only.

 

You are forcing me to repeat myself.
Once again:

the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate. Now, if the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate, then it means that they used what was written in the Mandate that says that the Jews have the right to settle in "Palestine", which means that if they used a statement from the Mandate (when they wrote in Article 73 that it's cunstituted "Palestine"), then they need also to refered the West Bank as it was refered in the Mandate, which is a place that Jews can settle, which makes the argument that "the settlements are illegal", as false argument

 

yes, for historical purposes only.

its absurd to suggest that the ICJ was saying that the Mandate is still in effect.

 

You are forcing me to repeat myself.
Once again:

the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate. Now, if the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate, then it means that they used what was written in the Mandate that says that the Jews have the right to settle in "Palestine", which means that if they used a statement from the Mandate (when they wrote in Article 73 that it's cunstituted "Palestine"), then they need also to refered the West Bank as it was refered in the Mandate, which is a place that Jews can settle, which makes the argument that "the settlements are illegal", as false argument

 

your putting words in the ICJ's mouth, and projecting.

 

I'm not doing nothing. I wrote it according to the Article 73 from the Advisory Opinion of 2004.

 

The one that condemns the Israeli settlements and occupation of Palestine.

 

And contradicts itself in Article 73.

 

I agree, we should respect the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in 2004 on the construction of the wall
being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.

 

The Advisory Opinion is been contradicted by Article 73 of it's document.

 

lol!!!

the advisory opinion is being contradicted by the advisory opinion?

lol!!!!

 

It's been contradicted by its own Article 73. I already showed you that.

 

so the ICJ is contradicting the ICJ, and you know more about the ICJ than they do.



wow, those ICJ are some idiots huh?

 

I only follow Article 73 that is in their Advisory Opinion from 2004.

 

right, so when they say the West Bank is Occupied by Israel, the ICJ are just being silly idiots huh?

 

No. They contradict themselves with Article 73.

 

why don't they know this?

are the ICJ idiots?

 

No. They just contradcit themselves with Article 73.
Why they did it? You need to ask them yourself.

 

They never did. Again all article 73 says is "73. In the 1967 armed conflict, Israeli forces occupied all the territories which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate (including those known as the West Bank, lying to the east of the Green Line)"
It is referring to areas Israel captured after 6 day war. Anything else you say is not in article 73 and your own opinion. Thus you have no argument.

Btw the ICJ also does use UN charter in its decision. Also note in summary opinion of paragraphs 70-78 it describes 73 as "close of its analysis, the Court notes that the territories situated between the Green Line and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan".

Historical background
(paras. 70-7
In order to indicate the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, the Court has first to determine whether or not the construction of that wall breaches international law. To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class &#8220;A&#8221; mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. In the course of this analysis, the Court mentions the hostilities of 1948-1949, and the armistice demarcation line between Israeli and Arab forces fixed by a general armistice agreement of 3 April 1949 between Israel and Jordan, referred to as the &#8220;Green Line&#8221;. At the close of its analysis, the Court notes that the territories situated between the Green Line and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, the Court observes, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories have done nothing to alter this situation. The Court concludes that all
The Court goes on to describe, on the basis of the information available to it in a report by the United Nations Secretary-General and the Written Statement presented to the Court by the Secretary-General, the works already constructed or in course of construction in that territory.
Relevant rules and principles of international law
(paras. 86-113)
It then turns to the determination of the rules and principles of international law which are relevant in assessing the legality of the measures taken by Israel. It observes that such rules and principles can be found in the United Nations Charter and certain other treaties, in customary international law and in the relevant resolutions adopted pursuant to the Charter by the General Assembly and the Security Council. It is aware, however, that doubts have been expressed by Israel as to the applicability in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of certain rules of international humanitarian law and human rights instruments.
United Nations Charter and General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV)
(paras. 87-8
The Court first recalls Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter, which provides that:
&#8220;All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,&#8221; and General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled &#8220;Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States&#8221; (hereinafter &#8220;resolution 2625 (XXV)&#8221, in which the Assembly emphasized that &#8220;No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.&#8221; As stated in the Court&#8217;s Judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaraguav. United States of America), the principles as to the use of force incorporated in the Charter reflect customary international law (see I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 98-101, paras. 187-190); the same is true, it observes, of its corollary entailing the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force. As to the principle of self-determination of peoples, the Court points out that it has been enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed by the General Assembly in resolution 2625 (XXV) cited above, pursuant to which &#8220;Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] . . . of their right to self-determination.&#8221; Article 1 common to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reaffirms the right of all peoples to self-determination, and lays upon the States parties the obligation to promote the realization of that right and to respect it, in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. The Court recalls its previous case law,which emphasized that current developments in &#8220;international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all [such territories]&#8221;, and that the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes"
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Also note in this summary by the court

"The Court responds to the question as follows:

- A. By fourteen votes to one,

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law;

- B. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;

- C. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;

- D. By thirteen votes to two,

All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;

- . By fourteen votes to one,

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion."
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131

Why don't you accept that you have no argument with ICJ court decision. You have an argument with article 80, a weak one but still an argument since you are actually citing some experts that agree with you instead of adding words and your own opinion to a court decision.

 

As I wrote:

the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate. Now, if the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate, then it means that they used what was written in the Mandate that says that the Jews have the right to settle in "Palestine", which means that if they used a statement from the Mandate (when they wrote in Article 73 that it's cunstituted "Palestine"), then they need also to refered the West Bank as it was refered in the Mandate, which is a place that Jews can settle, which makes the argument that "the settlements are illegal", as false argument

They feiled also to mentioned that the armistice lines of 1949, in the agreement it states that the armistic line (AKA "The Green Line") cant be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.

Which Article 80 of the UN Charter contradicts that claim.

There is Article from the UN Charter, that contradicts their claims.

The well was built to stop the terrorist attacks that took place in Israel at that time. Hence, the well was a difensive act against terrorism, which according to the UN Report from 2012, it is acceptable from Israel to do defensive acts.
If the Arabs wouldnt made bombing attacks against Israeli civilians at that time, probably the well wouldnt been built.

According to Prof. Stone, an international law expert:

Source: https://books.google.co.il/books?id... entirely lacked legal justification.&f=false

I was refering to Article 73 in the begining of my comment.
BTW- I also provided a document that was written by experts, regarding the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ 2004. Hence, I have an argument with the ICJ court decision from 2004.

BTW2- if you say that I have an argument with Article 80, then it means that the West Bank is not occupied.

 

In the 1967 armed conflict, Israeli forces occupied all the territories which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate (including those known as the West Bank, lying to the east of the Green Line)"
That's all it said(it never uses what was written or a statement in the mandate doc since it doesn't quote it). everything else you said is your opinion. The summary also describes article 73 as
"At the close of its analysis, the Court notes that the territories situated between the Green Line and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. "

Status of territory captured doesn't matter for whether territory is occupied. Definition of occupation is from Hague Regulation of 1907 and it's
"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. " Nowhere in the definition does it say it depends on status of territory captured.

I said you have a weak argument with article 80 since unlike your article 73 ICJ argument you actually used some evidence with article 80(however as already documented I used more experts against article 80 and no body of authority beside Israel agree with that interpretation of article 80).

I support the security fence as it was built in response to suicide bombers during second intifada. The court summary of the territories being occupied and 4th Geneva Convention being violated is correct and is the consensual opinion among experts and the international community.