To be fair, he was quoting Stalin.
They’ve just turned it into the world’s largest open-air prison after withdrawing from it in what a top Israeli official described as a cynical move designed to prevent progress with the peace process and an eventual Palestinian state.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, adopted on March 22, 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the “Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.[1] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.
In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”
**
United Nations Security Council Resolution 465, adopted unanimously on March 1, 1980, was on the issue of the Israeli settlements and administration in “the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem”. This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.
After noting a report by the Security Council Commission established in Resolution 446 (1979), the Council accepted and commended its work while criticising Israel for not cooperating with it. It expressed concern at Israeli settlement policy in the Arab territories and recalled resolutions 237 (1967), 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969) and 298 (1971). It further called upon the State and people of Israel to dismantle such settlements.
**
Resolution 465 (1980)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2203rd meeting
*on 1 March 1980
*The Security Council,
*Taking note* of the reports of the Commission of the Security Council established under [resolution 446 (1979)](http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc?OpenDocument) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in documents [S/13450](http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9785bb5ef44772dd85256436006c9c85?OpenDocument) and Corr. 1 and [S/13679](http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/0b72114d058734f085256bcf0078164b?OpenDocument),
*Taking note also* of letters from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/13801) and the Permanent Representative of Morocco, Chairman of the Islamic Group (S/13802),
*Strongly deploring* the refusal by Israel to co-operate with the Commission and regretting its formal rejection of [resolutions 446 (1979)](http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc?OpenDocument) and [452 (1979)](http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/0b7116abb4b7e3e9852560e5007688a0?OpenDocument),
*Affirming once more* that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
*Deploring* the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,
*Deeply concerned* over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,
*Taking into account* the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of private and public land and property, and water resources,
*Bearing in mind* the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,
*Drawing attention* to the grave consequences which the settlement policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
*Recalling* pertinent Security Council resolutions, specifically resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, as well as the consensus statement made by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976,
*Having invited* Mr. Fahd Qawasmeh, Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron), in the occupied territory, to supply it with information pursuant to rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure,
1. *Commends* the work done by the Commission in preparing the report contained in document S/13679;
2. *Accepts* the conclusions and recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the Commission;
3. *Calls upon* all parties, particularly the Government of Israel, to co-operate with the Commission;
4. *Strongly deplores* the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel of Mayor Fahd Qawasmeh in order to appear before the Security Council, and requests Israel to permit his free travel to the United Nations headquarters for that purpose;
5. *Determines* that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
6. *Strongly deplores* the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
7. *Calls upon* all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;
8. *Requests* the Commission to continue to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly the water resources, with a view to ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation, and to keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the present resolution;
9. *Requests* the Commission to report to the Security Council before 1 September 1980, and decides to convene at the earliest possible date thereafter in order to consider the report and the full implementation of the present resolution.
His autopsy showed 4 shots to the head.
He was buried today.
Does news have to be verified by the American press to be considered authentic? :rolleyes:
I’m sure you could ask for his body to be disinterred and do your own autopsy if you don’t believe the Turkish one. He’s Muslim so his body was buried not cremated which will make it easier for you.
It’s an open air prison so long as Hamas continues to bombard Israel. If the bombardment ceases, the blockade will stop. I don’t know which “top Israeli official” you are referring to, but most Israelis want a two-state solution, something the Palestinians could have had numerous times since 1948.
If you’re referring to the how many divisions does Hamas have thing then it’s Stalin, not Hitler. Stalin famously asked how many divisions does the Pope have.
That would be Stalin, not Hitler, referred to the Pope of the time, and had no direct reference to the Jews. (“How many divisions does he have?”) But that quote wasn’t my reference anyway. Wasn’t even thinking about it.
Of course, terrorism is not legitimate. But the suggestion that Hamas/Gaza is somehow in a position to crush the Israelis under their iron heel is an absurdity, their terrorism is a reflection of their impotence. Even more, it is a reflection of their humiliation, the dark human impulse to strike back, regardless of cost. Alas.
For me, the only test is whether or not an action furthers the cause of peace, peace before some damn fool thing sparks the death of millions. Preventing Hamas/Gaza having access to weaponized chamomile does nothing for the cause of peace. And peace is more sacred than justice, certainly more worthy a motivation than pride.
And by Hamas remaining in charge in Gaza and continuing to fire rockets, it’s going to stay that way. This isn’t about settlements, it’s not about people being forced off land. It’s about Gaza, and the blockade. So even if the intention of the withdrawal from Gaza was to prevent progress with the peace process, so what? The Israelis are out of Gaza, the settlements are disbanded. If Gaza got rid of Hamas, the blockade would likely be ended too.
The bombardment tends to be mainly the other way. Like I said before, Israel are the agressors in this situation. Is the right of self-defence only given to the aggressors in any given situation? The top Israeli official is Dov Weinglass, read the post upthread.
People should, of course, recognize that there is no precise legal definition for “ethnic cleansing” and that, likewise, Dick’s claims about “Palestinian land” are political rhetoric and not factual. The clear majority of land involved in disputes in the West Bank was never privately owned Palestinian property. Even Israel’s most outspoken anti-settlement organizations have certified this fact.
Ethnic cleansing has, in general, had the informal definition of the deportation, displacement or mass killing members a specific ethnic group in order to establish an ethnically homogeneous geographic area. That doesn’t fit the facts. Nor does Dick’s overblown claim that there is a “slow-motion” plan to ethnically cleanse all of the West Bank and Gaza hold any water, at all.
It’s the standard overblown rhetoric that is splattered all over this topic. Instead of saying something like “X dunams of private Palestinian property have been illegally appropriated and much of the rest of the territory in question is disputed and its status will be resolved by Final Status negotiations”, the claim is “All of Gaza and the West Bank are being subjected to ethnic cleansing!!!”
Likewise, Dick’s condemnation is one-sided and misuses language to support a conclusion. Jews were driven out of several areas in the West Bank in and around '48. Dick would have people believe that Jews moving back to these areas is part of the “slow-motion” ethnic cleansing of the region. The last Jews were driven out of Gaza City around 1929 but Jews attempting to return to Gaza was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Dick seems to be condoning if not supporting ethnic cleansing (as long as it’s against proto-Israelis).
That specific soundbyte sure is making the rounds. Of course, as the 4th GC explicitly allows for internment, it’s again clear that language is being used to inflame and exaggerate rather than clarify.
Cite?
The last time you made a similar claim it turned out that all of your cites disagreed with you or didn’t even address the claim you were making. You claimed, for instance, that Israel was supporting Hamas so it didn’t have to engage in peace negotiations… while Israel was bombing Hamas and had engaged in numerous peace talks over the years including agreeing to peace talks that Fatah had just called off.
A cite of this “top Israeli official” would be good.
Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of all the Palestinian people and they haven’t fired any rockets for some time now. Again, the munitions overwhelmingly come the other way.
Hamas recently offered to stop all violence if Israel end the blockade and return to 1967 borders
But Israel want to continue what they’re doing, they’re going to keep on claiming that it’s impossible to negotiate with Hamas and keep on keeping on with their agenda, as explained by their former AG recently :
We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day…
The Six-Day War’s seventh day has transformed us from a just society into an unjust one, prepared to expand its control atop another nation’s ruins. The discarding of our moral foundation has hurt us as a society, reinforcing the arguments of the world’s hostile elements and sowers of evil and intensifying their influence…
No need to repeat the details of the painful phenomena entailed in the occupation regime and in our battle to prolong it. Suffice it to recall the killing of little children fleeing for safety; the executions, without trial, of wanted persons who were not on their way to launch a terrorist act; and the encirclements, closures and roadblocks that have turned the lives of millions into a nightmare. Even if all these actions stem from our need to defend ourselves under an occupation’s conditions, the occupation’s non-existence would render them unnecessary. Thus, a black flag hovers over these actions…
Michael Ben-Yair (Israel’s Attorney General, 1993 - 1996)
The Rachel Corrie vessel is 80 miles off Gaza. GMT +2 the local time here in Egypt now is 23.59.
The skipper can see the North Egypt coastline.
They are expecting the IDF commandos any time now.
Switch on your TV’s if you are interested and watch it live so there can be no doubt about what happens this time.
No of course not, prior to your link I thought the 4 wounds to the head was something his Dad and brother had said. They could have been mistaken or exaggerating. You really must know, I am an American, and according to your prior posts I am an expert in fire arms. Given my expertise due to the location of my birth certificate I just could not easily believe the kid took 4 shots to the head without it occuring after he was gravely wounded or dead.
Between the other poster confirming how difficult it is and the Turkish medical examiner’s report (after all, if it is the official report of a Turkish medical examiner then I see no reason to ignore it.), I am convinced it happened after he was wounded, and am curious as to why this many wounds occurred.
Anyways thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen it.
The Legal Status of Land Taken in 1967
- Israel’s Legitimate Claims:
Some parts of the West Bank would have been part of Israel as defined by the UN Partition Plan, but were overrun in 1948. There were Jewish communities such as Kfar Etzion, not to mention the Old City of Jerusalem, that fell in the fighting of 1948. Jews were either killed or expelled from these areas conquered by invading Arab armies.
The League of Nations Mandate explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. The British Mandate covered the area that is currently Israel, all the disputed territories (and even what is now Jordan). These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.
- Defensive War:
Military control of the West Bank was clearly the result of a defensive war. According to Dr. Dore Gold, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:
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.”
- Forced Transfer of Civilian Populations:
There are mistaken claims that Israel’s control of these territories violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted August 12, 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. It outlaws the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control, specifically “individual or mass forcible transfers.”
The only forced mass transfers were against Jewish communities in 1948. After the Six Day War, Israel did not expel a single Arab community from land it now controlled.
The “Occupying Power” may also not “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population” to territories taken in conflict. Israel has never forced Jews to move to the territories. However, there is no obligation for Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population.
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 242
After the war, there were many opinions as to what a peace agreement should require of the parties. The view of the Soviet Union and Arab bloc was that Israel should be forced to withdraw from all lands taken in the war. However, this view did not prevail in the United Nations.
According to the American Israel Cooperative Enterprise:
The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the recognition that “every State in the area” has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from “all the” territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant “that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands.” The Arab states pushed for the word “all” to be included, but this was rejected. The Arab League then rejected the entire resolution. Nonetheless, it was approved by the Security Council.
The resolutions clearly call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from “territories occupied” in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied. Israel withdrew from 95% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai and then Gaza. It has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.
In addition, the Arab reaction to the resolution was not to make peace but instead the “Three No’s” of the Khartoum Conference of August 1967:
No peace with Israel
No recognition of Israel
No negotiation with Israel
Forty Years of Suffering?
Since launching a terror war in 2000, Palestinian living standards have undoubtedly declined as the Palestinian leadership adopted violence ahead of nation building and investing in civil society. Contrary to some claims in the media, “occupation” is not the primary reason for the current plight of the Palestinians. As Dr Mitchell Bard, Director of the Jewish Virtual Library points out:
When Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, officials took measures to improve the conditions that Palestinians had lived under during Jordan’s 19-year occupation of the West Bank, and Egypt’s occupation of Gaza. Universities were opened, Israeli agricultural innovations were shared, modern conveniences were introduced, and health care was significantly upgraded. More than 100,000 Palestinians were employed in Israel, and were paid the same wages as Israeli workers, which stimulated economic growth.
Despite the collapse of the PA economy from the last five years of war, Palestinian Arabs are still better off than many of their neighbors. The most recent Human Development Report from the United Nations ranked the PA 102nd in terms of life expectancy, educational attainment and adjusted real income out of the 177 countries and territories in the world, placing it in the “medium human development” category along with most of the other Middle Eastern states (only the Gulf sheikdoms are ranked “high”). The PA was ranked just 12 places below Jordan and one behind Iran; it was rated ahead of Syria (#105), Algeria (#108), Egypt (#120), and Morocco (#125).
Forty years after a war of survival left it in control of disputed territories, Israel continues to seek a negotiated peace with both the Palestinians and the Arab world.
Israel had every legal and moral right to defend herself in 1967 and has legitimate rights within the territory that is under her control today. If you see a media report that misrepresents the events of 1967, use this primer and the following links to respond to media bias:
The open air prison thing was first used to describe the situation by a deputation of Catholic bishops visiting from Ireland and Italy a couple of years ago. I already posted about the top Israeli guy, he was described as Sharon’s senior advisor. I’m happy for people reading to decide how accurate my posts are.
OK, this is some Israeli propaganda site. You haven’t even linked it. I’m happy for people to read this and then read what the UN resolutions and the Israeli human rights organisations have to say and decide for themselves whether the settlements are illegal or not.
Hamas is not the elected representative of all the Palestinians, only those living in Gaza. Fatah remains the government in the West Bank. It is not true that Hamas has not fired rockets for some time. True, the numbers have greatly diminished, but rockets are still fired almost on a daily basis.
Mari Marmara’s weapons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sANhzjcC0
First of all, who cares if they’re the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinians. They’re still anti-Israeli terrorists. And if they haven’t fired any rockets for some time now, that’s a good sign the blockade is working, isn’t it?
Cite.
Not everyone sees Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
In fact the US were quite happy to go ahead with the 2005 elections because they thought that Hamas would lose.
Haniyah winning was a complete shock to them.
Democracy?
It’s only democracy when the electorate vote for the candidate that the US wants.
Khaleej Times
4 June 2010,
ANKARA - Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday he did not view radical Palestinian group Hamas, Israel’s arch-foe, as a terrorist organisation.
“Hamas are resistance fighters who are struggling to defend their land. They have won an election,” Erdogan said in a public speech in the central city of Konya, broadcast live on television.
“I have told this to US officials… I do not accept Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I think the same today. They are defending their land,” he said.
The United States and the European Union blacklist Hamas as a terrorist group despite its victory in Palestinian elections in 2006.
Erdogan made the remarks in an angry tirade against Israel after Monday’s raid on a flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip, which claimed the lives of nine Turks and plunged already strained ties between the once-close allies into deep crisis.
He lashed out at Western powers for denying Hamas a chance to shift to a democratic platform.
“Why didn’t you give them an opportunity? Let them wage a democratic struggle,” he said, his speech often interrupted by a cheering crowd of party supporters.
Erdogan renewed criticism of Israel’s raid on the aid flotilla, whose main organisers included a Turkish Islamist charity, with the bulk of its passengers Turks.
“Our problem is not with the Israeli or the Jewish people. Our problem is with the oppressive Israeli administration which commits state terror,” he said.
“If peace is going to come to the world, this world should be built on justice,” he said.
The Israeli government, he said, is “hypocritical,” “paranoid” and a “lier.”
Ankara has previously insisted that peace cannot be achieved in the Middle East if Hamas was excluded from the process.
It has also urged the armed group, which has called for the destruction of Israel, to renounce violence and engage in peaceful politics.
In February 2006, Ankara angered Israel when it hosted a delegation led by Hamas supremo Khaled Meshaal, following the Islamists’ victory in Palestinian elections, in what Turkish officials defended as an effort to press the militant group to lay down arms.
In January 2009, Turkish officials acted as mediators between Hamas leaders based in Syria and Egyptian officials seeking to hammer out a ceasefire deal to end Israel’s devastating 22-day war on Gaza.
Israel has cut Gaza off from all but vital humanitarian aid in a bid to pressure Hamas to end rocket attacks on southern Israel.