FOX News has a breaking news ticker up that says, “US ALLOWS UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO CONDEMN ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS AS ‘NO LEGAL VALIDITY’”. No additional details yet, but I wanted to ask Dopers what they thought of Israeli settlement activity.
Is it unwise?
Is it immoral?
Is it illegal?
Please show your work.
That’s a FOX News Ticker.
Please show us a story.
Israel has bent over backwards to codify the Arabs by giving up Gaza (Hamastan) and have tried to placate the pro Palestinian Far Left in America (Current Administration) and Suicidal Israeli Doves … and now its time for a new tact .
Here’s Politico. Here’s USA Today. Here’s ABC.
Here’s the New York Times calling this vote “perhaps [the Security Council’s] biggest vote in recent history.”
IMO the settlements are not wise. They are unnecessarily provocative, and make eventual peace more difficult.
There is some immorality involved, especially when the settlement is established by the eviction of people already living there. The settlements serve a defensive role, making Israel safer, and that is a good moral service.
They are legal, as the land was conquered in war. I live in San Diego, California, a settlement (so to speak) that was conquered in the war of 1848. It would be hypocritical, at least, of the U.S. to declare that taking land and living there is illegal.
I think settlement should cease, some of the most recent settlements given back, and real peace negotiations begin. However, I do not believe such discussions can be fruitful at this time, and when they break down, there is no convincing reason for Israel to cease settlement activity.
Both sides must receive rewards as well as punishments.
Obama’s petty and meaningless parting shot at Netanyahu in the waning few days of his administration.
Trump already said he would have vetoed the resolution and I am sure will veto anything like that in the Security Council if it comes up again.
You first.
*Merry Christmas, Bibi.
Love, Barry.
*
25% of the posters on this forum/board could not find Israel on a map (Without Reading glasses ) so solidifying the Settlements and East Jerusalem are not going to create a "Greater Israel " …
Yes, if the goal is long-term peace. No, if the goal is the gradual elimination of the Palestinians as a people.
Yes. If the land is Isreal’s to take, then the people living there deserve equal rights.
Yes, as it violates the Geneva Convention.
I recognize that this claim is disputed.
Zero (Obama ) & Lurch (Kerry ) backstabbed Israel on their way out today .
Conquering territory, at least in the modern sense, does not give the occupying nation-state a valid legal claim on territory that was occupied and claimed by another and was internationally recognized as being that other country’s territory - at least not without some form of agreement or treaty. Setting aside the justness of the Mexican-American war itself, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ceded California to the U.S. was signed and ratified by Mexico.
What treaty or agreement has recognized that the West Bank belongs to Israel and that Israel is the rightful soveriegn over it? Israel, to my knowledge, has not even formally annexed the West Bank. So, how can they claim de facto ownership of territory they have not even legally claimed?
No other sovereign entity has a claim on that territory.
How can Israel claim they are legally settling territory they do not legally claim is theirs?
There is one other group that has made a legal claim to the land in the West Bank. They have organized themselves into a government that, even if Israel does not recognize as a legitimate nation-state, Israel will have to make a decision one day to either recognize or to formally annex the West Bank and therefore make Palestinians there into Israeli citizens. Israel right now wants to have the West Bank as their own gray area where they can do whatever they want in without daring to take a formal legal position for fear of the political consequences.
So at the 31st time of asking - that’s 30 vetoes on this particular issue, the USA grew some balls, and even joined the rest of the world.
It won’t last of course. Back to being the Israeli lapdog again in January.
As opposed to being Pro Arab & Israel (The Tiny Jewish State) haten as we have been last 8 years ?
I think Jordan comes closest…except that they don’t want it.
Jordan surrendered any claim to sovereignty over the West Bank on July 31 1988.
I feel somewhat compelled to call “bullshit” on such an observation, I’m afraid - even if one contends the Obama administration was less supportive of Israel than Bush43, I’d want to see some actual evidence of this “haten” of which you speak.
For that matter, is any variability in U.S./Israel relations acceptable, or is it just “love Israel 100% and anything less demonstrates 100% hatred of Israel” ?
“international law”, such that it is, does not recognize territory taken by force as legitimate in the modern age. Are you willing to concede that Russia can take the Crimea and then some? That the entire South China Sea belongs to China?
To echo a poster above, if the goal is long term peace, then the settlements are a really bad idea. If the goal is genocide of the Palestinians, then it’s good. Me, I think and have long thought the settlements are bad.