The same way Ireland is “Irish state” and Finland is “Finnish state”. A state for the Irish. A state for the Finns. A state for the Jews.
The West bank regions were part of Jordan ,now they are part of Israel now .
Next up the Israel haters will bring up the USS Liberty attack …
Simon Wiesenthal Center is not “Israeli establishment”. Look it up.
.
These are some of the countries voting for the resolution.
I don’t see Britain and France as being motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment.
But, as I said, if you’re going to thumb your nose at the international community and continue with controversial settlement building program, then you have to expect some blow back. “The World Hates the Jews” is not a fair characterization of what his happening. There is a legitimate dispute over the morality and legality of this policy. It would be a mistake to blame that all on antisemitism. Especially in light of the significant number of Jewish people who feel the same way.
I never said it was, though it has offices in Jerusalem. But its view and description of the US abstention and the UNSC resolution seems to be the view of the Netanyahu government, a not insignificant part of the Israeli press, and of course, the Israeli lobby here in the U.S.
Mosques are being destroyed in the West Bank right now, so I don’t find that argument especially persuasive. Terrible things happen in war.
The UN Partition Plan called for Jerusalem to be independent of both Israel and Palestine; perhaps that was the right idea all along.
-
The Supreme Court of Israel disagrees.
-
If the West Bank is part of Israel, why are 2.7 million people there denied the right to vote in Israeli elections?
According to the agreement in 1967, they were not to build on Palestine land, there was almost a peace agreement until the Netanyahu’s party had Rabin assassinated. The Us has always vetoed the vote before.
I think it’s valid…but, as I noted, it’s only barely valid. It’s damn weak sauce, but it is sauce.
This. Israel has not claimed the West Bank as part of itself, but has been very careful to maintain that it is merely under military occupation.
It’s plenty disturbing enough that some Israelis are claiming that some of the settlements are now “part of Israel.”
Someone can alleviate my ignorance: is it an official Israeli government position that some of the settlements are now formally “part of Israel?” (Only some of them, or all of them?) Or is this just a position taken by some hard-liners?
First, it depends on what you call “settlements”.
Israel formally annexed Jerusalem. So a lot of what the UN resolution would call “settlements” are actually parts of Jerusalem and are Israeli territory.
AFAIU, all of what you’d call the West Bank is designated as “disputed territories”. Most of it is under control of the Palestinian autonomy.
“Disputed” and not “occupied” since in order to be occupied, there has to be a sovereign entity that has a claim on them, and there isn’t one. Basically cannot be occupied if there is no one you’re formally “occupying” them from.
That seems to be pending. The Israeli government has basically been ignoring its own Supreme Court’s ruling that the largest outpost in particular be torn down from 2014. In that case, the Israeli government admitted that this particular outpost was illegally constructed and should be torn down.
The Israeli Supreme Court disagrees and has labeled Israeli military activities in the West Bank as an occupation, specifically citing the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) protecting civilians as it applies to a situation of a partial or total occupation between two or more High Contracting Parties (basically a governmental entity that has signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions) in cases of war or any other armed conflict.
Here’s what they wrote back in 2004 when discussing the construction of the barrier:
Ultimately, the Court ruled that when considering the LOAC principles of military necessity and proportionality, along with compensation provided to the private property owners whose land the barrier would occupy, these outweighed the private property owners’ legal challenge to the barrier. With the settlements and outposts, though, a military commander was not making the call to construct them and so there is no military necessity or proportionality factor, even though the outposts/settlements may offer some ancillary military benefit. It’s just a straight-up civilian land-grab.
Please specify between which two or more High Contracting Parties this occupation is.
A quick off-the-cuff response to the OP:
Unwise? I think so.
Immoral? Eh, I think it has low moral utility.
Illegal? I don’t know what the governing legal authority is.
Great question! But, at least in that particular Supreme Court of Israel opinion, it wasn’t an answer that they had to address since both parties (one of which was the Government of Israel) stipulated that the GC IV applied.
[QUOTE=Supreme Court of Israel, pages 13-14, para 23]
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)… The authority of the military commander flows from the provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation. These rules are established principally in the [Hague Regulations]. These regulations reflect customary international law. The military commander’s authority is also anchored in [GC IV]. The question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention has come up more than once in this Court. The question is not before us now, since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review.
[/quote]
Since 2004, however, the Palestinian Authority has signed numerous international treaties, to include the Geneva Conventions, under the name “the State of Palestine.” At least as to the GCs,Switzerland has agreed to recognize the PA as a High Contracting Party. That certainly doesn’t settle the issue, but the issue of whether the PA qualifies as a High Contracting Party in any future court case is going to be hairy unless the issue is sidestepped again.
No, the stipulation was that some parts, specifically, “the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention” applied.
Can you explain how Israel could have occupied, in 1967, “the State of Palestine” that never existed for even one day in all the previous history?
I was thinking of Curwin and this ask the Jewish Settler thread
theocracy fine when Israel does it, but nowhere else?
Although I am not a religious person, I accept that the religious deserve a safe space to practice their religions. Christians have plenty of countries; Muslims have plenty of countries; Buddhists and Hinduists have countries; the Mormons have their own state, etc. The Sikhs are a majority in India’s Punjab. Millions of people adhere to the Bahá’í Faith but they lack any homeland and have been persecuted. The Bahá’í world headquarters has refuge in … Israel.
Zoroastrianism and the associated Yazdânism lack a refuge. Persecution of them played a role in the Armenian massacre. I think some of the Middle East problems might be reduced if the Kurds had their own state; among other benefits this would give a safe sanctuary to the practitioners of these ancient religions.
So, no. I do not find it unreasonable that the Jews be allowed the Jewish country promised to them pursuant to the Covenant of the League of Nations. Some of those hoping for a Muslim majority in an expanded “Israel” undoubtedly have longer-term, more final, solutions in mind.
(As I’ve mentioned, much of what I know about Westerners I’ve learned in the East! I asked one Western retiree why he hated Jews: “There must be something wrong with them. People have been hating them for thousands of years.”)
theocracy fine when Israel does it, but nowhere else?
Some call the U.S.A. a theocracy! I hope that if you denounce Israel, you also denounce some of America’s hypocrisies.
Why is non-acceptance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty fine when Israel does it, but nowhere else?
Muslims outnumber Jews about 100 to 1. Until there’s reason to believe tolerance and love of peace is the norm, I support Israel’s need for “Second Amendment protection” 
As to your question of why some people hate Jews, I believe it is because it started hundreds of years ago when the Jews were accused of killing Jesus, but if Christians thought about it and Jesus was supposed to die for the people then the Jews had done them a favor.Many Christians don’t apparently read or think about their book according to the NT Jesus is quoted (In Matthew) That he told the 12 not to go to the Gentiles or the Smaritans. just the lost sheep of Israel; He also told a woman who wanted Jesus to cure her child that he came only to the lost sheep of Israel. The Crusadesrs thought nothing of killing Jews or Muslims, Now some Christian sects want Israel to be converted so we can have the end of this world and Jesus can return, even though he was quoted as saying;“In Matthew, " I will return in my father’s glory ,with his angels ,before some of you standing here see death”. It didn’t happen at least it wasn’t recorded. It seems people are afraid of anyone who doesn’t agree with them and are fearful they will lose their beliefs or be persecuted for them.