Log In | Register
Obama has called settlements "illegitimate." And he has said that Israel "has obligations under the road map," while referring disparagingly to "settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal."
...
By characterizing its demand that Israel prohibit Jews from building homes in Israel's capital city and its heartland as a legal requirement, the Obama administration portrays Israel as an international outlaw.
...
The problem with the Obama administration's characterization of a ban on Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as an Israeli legal obligation is that Israel has never taken upon itself a legal obligation to prohibit such building activities. Israel has never signed an agreement that has characterized any Jewish communities as "illegal."
...
More importantly perhaps from the Obama administration's perspective is that the road map itself lacks the force of international law. Although it was adopted by the Security Council, it was not adopted as an internationally binding document under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Consequently, Israel has no international legal obligation to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem.
Barack Obama vs International Law - "Settlements" are not Illegal
Article Source: JPost.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (8)
Violate UN resolutions and you are "an international outlaw". Other countries have been bombed for less.
Israel has never signed an agreement that has characterized any Jewish communities as "illegal."
Neither did Denmark sign a treaty not to build houses in Sweden.
Not surprising an opinion piece from The Jerusalem Post is completely untouched by reality.
- 4 votes
#1 - Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:21 AM EDTUN General Assembly Resolution 194 is non-binding. Resolution 242 is binding (since it was security council). However, the interpretation of its language is still subject to dispute (see the discussion over the language in the wikipedia article). It is not so clear that Israel has violated this resolution, any more than its cobelligerants have violated part 1.ii.
Denmark? Sweden? What are you talking about?
Not surprising an opinion piece from The Jerusalem Post is completely untouched by reality.
On the contrary, it is firmly grounded in reality. Please address the statements and claims made in the article, rather than just dismissing it out of hand because it comes from a Jewish and Israeli newspaper.
- 2 votes
Neither did Denmark sign a treaty not to build houses in Sweden.
Well, for that matter, as far as I know, Uruguay hasn't signed any treaties not to build houses in Siberia. And, I doubt if Uganda has signed treaties not to build houses in Argentine. And...
- 4 votes
Technically, they are not illegal because there has been no peace agreement delineating borders between Israel and the Arab nations. Consequently, Jews have the right to live anywhere they wish. However, from a political point of view, many believe that many of these settlements are obstacles to peace. Israel has indicated that they will remove the vast majority of these settlements as part of an overall settlement with the Arabs. However, unilateral evacuation of Gaza by Israel in 2005 has shown that without a two-way agreement, there is no benefit to Israel to withdraw from settlements.
- 3 votes
#2 - Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:17 AM EDTHowever, from a political point of view, many believe that many of these settlements are obstacles to peace.
So? Because "many" believe this (an incorrect belief, in my opinion, one that is propagated by the same political interests that believe that Hamas "rejecting every proposal supported by Israel, including Netanyahu's insistence that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state" is also of no consequence) this should matter to the Jews who actually live there? They should stop having children because of this belief held by "many"?
However, unilateral evacuation of Gaza by Israel in 2005 has shown that without a two-way agreement, there is no benefit to Israel to withdraw from settlements.
And the Oslo accords have shown that with a two-way agreement, there is no benefit to Israel to withdraw from settlements.
- 3 votes
Sorry, I should have been clearer on my posting as to the source. While it presents points from a global perspective it ignores reality. Everyone forgets the number of wars that Israel has has as the bordering Arab countries tried to destroy Israel and take claim to every inch of Israels sovereignty.
Personally, I disagree with the removal of any settlements. Why, because as we have seen in Gaza, it doesn't lead to Peace it just wets the terrorists (Hamas and the PA) appetite for more of Israel. Samaria and Judea belong to Israel and the Arabs that emigrated their need to find their own country to ruin.
One gets a clearly picture when the Arabs clearly refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state but insist that all Jews vacate any Palestinian areas.
No one in the world stopped the Holocaust, so if Israel has to be on its own to survive sobeit. Darfur is a prime example of how the world (and especially the UN)doesn't give a @!$%# about people. Selective punishment of Israel is a prime example and is used by the UNHRC to ignore its own members barbarism against the UN's own charter.
So what to do - "A modest proposal" (apologies to Jonathan Swift) . Israel needs to be the technological leader in the development of alternative green energy production. Then they need to take out all of the Arab oil fields. For some reason, at that point, Israel and not OPEDC will get all the respect.
- 3 votes
Actually, there is something that is often overlooked in discussions of the settlements. Many people make the erroneous assumption that if Israel stopped building settlements-- or even destroyed existing settlements-- peace would occur. But that's a fallacy. The fact is (and anyone who's informed would have to admit)-- if the settlements were all destroyed-- the Arabs would still not make peace!
- 3 votes
#3 - Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:10 AM EDTThe fact is (and anyone who's informed would have to admit)-- if the settlements were all destroyed-- the Arabs would still not make peace!
Not only that, but it would be one more confirmation for them that their strategy of never doing anything but threaten and perform violence is really the best strategy - and from their positions inside the former Israeli "settlements", they would be much better poised to continue along this path.
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
