British MP called to suspend any financial aid to the PA>>MOD WARNING<<

So are you saying that Elon Moreh ruling didnt talk on the status of Elon Moreh?

- - - Updated - - -

Not propoganda, but facts.

 

I'm saying that the ruling is legally binding.

 

Elon Moreh has been fullfiled already by Israel, thus their final judgment has no validity of today, because their judgment was fullfiled.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_territories_captured_by_Israel

Please stop trolling this site.

 

If we will take a look on the actuall ruling, we will see the following:

So as you can see, in that patition (the Elon Moreh ruling) the Israeli Supreme Court review the question of the legality of establishing Elon Moreh, and not as you claim that the ruling talked about the status of the West Bank.

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

 

Elon Moreh case said that Judea & Samaria are under Israeli occupation.

 

Elon Moreh disscused on the issue of the status of Elon Moreh, as it was written in the actuall judgment, and the ruling was to relocate the settlement. Israel already fullfiled that ruling, thus today this ruling has no validity.

 

lol!!! you're obviously not a legal expert.

never heard of legal precedent, have you?

lol!!!

 

Doesn't sound like much of a win to me unless the payments are also stopped.

They need to put a stop to the families of terrorists being financially rewarded. It's half the problem with a lot of this Muslim carp.

 

And still the ruling was already been fullfiled by relocating Elon Moreh, as the judgment says.

 

bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

the decision is still legal precedent.

anyone who knows anything about the legal system, understands this.

 

There already is a 2 state solution. Muslims own 99.7% of the Middle East. Israel and the Jews own 00.3% of the Middle East. The muslims that are on Israeli land should move to the other 99.7% of the Middle East. All muslims should be relocated out of West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights. Period. Gaza muslims go to Egypt, West Bank muslims go to Jordan, Golan muslims go to Syria. Problem solved, done deal.

 

lol!!!

how about NO.

 

And still the ruling was already been fullfiled by relocating Elon Moreh, as the judgment says.

 

that doesn't mean the legal declarations in the ruling are "invalid", as you say.

thats just your own silly propaganda, from Likud and other Neo-Zionist colonialists.

 

First of all there is no "2 state solution" in our current reality, and such solution cant be existed when the Arabs teach hate, and teach that they need to kill the Jews (as the PA T.V. shows) and follow their Charters that state that the "mandatory Palestine needs to be libareted by force". I also dont believe in that solution if you ask me.

 

well, Netanyahu said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch.

 

The ruling is not ore valid once it been fullfiled.
Elon Moreh disscused on the issue of the status of Elon Moreh, as it was written in the actuall judgment, and the ruling was to relocate the settlement, and not about the status of the West Bank.

 

It doesnt contradict what I wrote.

 

and yet to date, no Supreme Court ruling has stated that the West Bank is not Occupied territory.

 

A governmantal report from 2012 states that the West Bank is not an "occupied territory", according to international law, internatinoal experts, previous Israeli Supreme Court's ruling etc.

Are you saying that a gevernmant needs to ignore their own reports?

 

that report is not legally binding.

the Elon Moreh decision is, and is legal precedent until superceded by a new supreme court decision stating differently.

 

Are you saying that a gevernmant needs to ignore their own reports?

The ruling is not ore valid once it been fullfiled.
Elon Moreh disscused on the issue of the status of Elon Moreh, as it was written in the actuall judgment, and the ruling was to relocate the settlement, and not about the status of the West Bank.

 

The former legal advisor to the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that settlements in the West Bank would violate international law.

do you think we should ignore Israel's legal advisors?

 

Here is a 15:00 minutes video for you to see, and hear from experts like Inetrnational lawyers Jacques Gauthier and Dr. Howard Grief, and which Dr. Grief was also the former legal advisor to Professor Yuval Ne&#8217;eman at the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure in matters of international law pertaining to the Land of Israel and Jewish rights thereto along with former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dore Gold:
[video=youtube;Zf267nA9jQw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zf267nA9jQw[/video]

As you can hear from the acutall people, the rights over "Palestine" (yes, with the West Bank) was granted exclusivly to the Jewish people in San Remo Conference, 1920, which there it was affirmed the legal rights of the Jews over "Palestine" by reconsituted their national homeland in that area, and the Arabs granted rights over the surrounding territories of Lebanon, Syria and Mesopotamia (= Iraq).
This resolution was a binding resolution under International law. It was an international decision in San Remo the rights over "Palestine" will be granted to the Jews. (AKA the document of the Mandate).
When in San Remo the world reconized the right of the Jews to reconstituted their national home in "Palestine", they simply recongzied a PRE- existing right.

In the video both international experts (Dr. Grief and Dr. Gauthier) agreed that Article 80 protects the right of the Jewish people over "Palestine" (the West Bank is in that territory).
And if we will look back at the begining of the video Dr. Gauthier said that because the Jewish people and the Arabs had would agree to entered a treaty based on the term of resolution 181, then it is not binding.
So because of such agreement was never been agreed, then "nothing in the chapter shell be constucted in or of itself in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states OR any people" (Article 80- as Prof. Rostow stated and which I provided numerous of times). Thus, the rights of the Jewish people over "Palestine", as it was described in the document of the Mandate is still valid, which means there is no "occupation" becuase of the legal rights that were granted to the Jews in San Remo resolution which been protected by Article 80.
Which means if you didn't get it, Dr. Gauthier said that the rights that were granted to the Jews in document of the Mandate, is still valid according to Article 80 that describe such thing.

Moreover, Dr. Gauthier even said at the begining of the video that General Assambley Resolution are not binding.