Pure Zionism by the right in Israel

their ruling regarding confiscation of private land in Occupied Territory for civilian-only settlements, has NOTHING to do with Article 49.

no where in their precedings do they cite Article 49 to justify their findings.

this is about the legal USE of confiscated private land in Occupied Territory, not the transfer of civilians.

 

That's why I also provided to you Article 55 from the Huege Convention, that talks about using lands of the other side.

Once again:
According to Article 55 in te Huege convention:

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_cent...ue04.asp#art55

According to that, if you are regarding Israel as an occupeir, then Article 55 says that Israel can enjoy "the fruits of the labour" from the properties that belong to the other side. Also Israel can lease such lands or cultivate them.

 

Stuntman let me fortify your explanation to all the Josephus Flavious on this board...

Here is an article by Ron Nachman ex Knesset member on this same subject.


ISRAEL DOES NOT "OCCUPY" JUDEA & SAMARIA
~By Ron Nachman

[RON NACHMAN, former Member of the Israeli Knesset (Likud), is the Mayor of Ariel.]

In the wake of the New Year, I want to share some thoughts with you regarding my vision for Israel's future and the challenges we will continue to face in the coming year.

Since 1967, news coverage of events in Judea and Samaria, both in Israel and abroad, have been inherently biased. A prime example is the use of the term "Occupied Territories" to refer to Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

From 1949 until 1967, the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt, while Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria, referring to the area as the West Bank of Jordan. Although nearly every nation refused to recognize this one-sided act, journalists never referred to the area as the Jordanian Occupied West Bank.

In June of 1967, Israel was attacked by her Arab neighbors. In a defensive move, Israel liberated the territories, which for thousands of years had been central to Eretz Israel, the very source of the word Judaism - the area of Judea and Samaria. And suddenly, journalists began referring to these areas as occupied territories, a classic case of the double standard that journalists and politicians find so convenient when applied to Israel. In truth, however, in contrast to the harsh occupation by Jordan, the administration of the area by Israel brought running water and electricity to Arab towns and villages, supported the creation of five universities for Arabs and guaranteed basic human rights to all residents of the area.

The use of the word occupation with regard to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria is a cynical manipulation of international law. Israel acquired these areas in a defensive war, holding on to the territories in order to prevent recurrent attacks from these areas against Israeli civilians. It is our legitimate right to hold on to this territory. The press and the international community have used the words "occupied territory" to deprive Israel of her legitimate rights.

The media continues to characterize Israel as the wrong-doer, by calling settlements "obstacles to peace." This too, has been used repeatedly to demonstrate Israel's aggressiveness. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

From 1948 to 1967, when Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea, Samaria and Gaza, there were no "settlements," and Jews were prohibited from even visiting these areas. Yet, our Arab neighbors refused to live in peace with us. If settlements are such an obstacle to peace, when there are no settlements, there should be peace. However, that has never been the case.

In fact, the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab country - Egypt - was only signed in 1977, after the first Jewish communities were created in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Today, with 144 Jewish communities spread throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Israel has signed two peace treaties and is negotiating a third with our Arab neighbors.

Clearly, the settlements are not obstacles to peace. If anything, they are catalysts for peace.

My friends, this proves only one thing: Oil talks. Its influence reaches as far as the United States in the West and Japan in the East.

 

ah, so you admit this has nothing to do with Article 49?

good to hear it.

international law says Occupying Power can only confiscate private land and then use the land for security purpose, not merely civilian settlement.

all settlements that are not related to the military are illegal.

 

I provided Article 49 because the Court also used this article regarding the settlements, that's why I also brought it.

According to Article 55 of the Huege Convention, if you are regarding Israel as an occupeir, then Article 55 says that Israel can enjoy "the fruits of the labour" from the properties that belong to the other side. Also Israel can lease such lands or cultivate them.

 

Your article says also that they got shot at in Gaza buffer zone, which is of course restricted area to civilians.[/QUOTE]

Regarding couple points on Taba talks. Contrary to what someone else said at Taba Israel did offer 94 percent of West Bank with 3 percent land swap so effectively under that offer they would get 97% of West Bank. Here is excerpt from Taba talks
“The Israeli maps were principally based on a demographic concept of settlements blocs that would incorporate approximately 80 percent on the settlers. The Israeli side sketched a map presenting a 6 percent annexation, the outer limit of the Clinton proposal. The Palestinian illustrative map presented 3.1 percent in the context of a land swap.
Both sides accepted the principle of land swap but the proportionality of the swap remained under discussion. Both sides agreed that Israeli and Palestinian sovereign areas will have respective sovereign contiguity. The Israeli side wished to count "assets" such as Israelis "safe passage/corridor" proposal as being part of the land swap, even though the proposal would not give Palestine sovereignty over these "assets". The Israeli side adhered to a maximum 3 percent land swap as per Clinton proposal. “
Whether Barak would be able to carry out is another issue. This was weeks before Sharon won against Barak in a landslide largely due to violence that erupted after failure of camp david talks. In addition Barak was ruling a minority government due to parties like Shas that left the government. It’s also very questionable if Taba offer was accepted and Sharon still won election he would have carried out the deal. However blame for Taba does lie with Arafat since offer wasn’t accepted even though it had practically everything they wanted.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/eu-description-of-the-outcome-of-permanent-status-talks-at-taba-1.52973


What I meant by that is that it doesn’t mean the Supreme Court decision is being followed or that it has caused policy to change. First link at the bottom is the excerpt from the article regarding house demolition in area C. This also isn’t the first time they have ordered Amona to be dismantled. Here is an excerpt from an article “The Supreme Court has on several occasions ordered that the outpost, located near the settlement of Ofra in the central West Bank, be dismantled. In 2006, troops razed nine homes after clashes with some 5,000 settlers and their sympathizers, but several dozen trailers have remained.
The government has repeatedly put off dismantling the rest of the outpost, despite court deadlines. Settlers recently claimed they had bought some of the land the outpost sits on, but Palestinians have vehemently denied this. The police have said the documents, which supposedly proved the sale, were apparently forged”
Regarding what should be done about illegal construction in the West Bank. The outposts need to be dismantled since as noted they are illegal even under Israeli law. Sharon agreed to that with the road map but was never implemented by him or successive governments. Permits by Palestinians should be approved along with land reserves around areas A and B to be reclassified as public land so building is allowed in these areas. The Supreme Court decision for return of Palestinian planning committee should implemented so master plans(To date, the Civil Administration has avoided approving any master plan at all for over 90% of the villages located entirely within Area C ) that actually involve the Palestinians could be implemented . Also loosen restrictions that bar Palestinians formally from building in 70%(through areas like firing zones where 5,000 palestinians live, 63% under jurisdiction of local and regional settlement councils)) of area C. As long as the occupation continues I don’t see that happening.
http://www.btselem.org/facing_expulsion_blog
http://www.timesofisrael.com/supreme-court-orders-removal-of-amona-outpost/
http://www.btselem.org/planning_and_building/restrictions_on_palestinian_planning_and_building
That does contradict Israel as a modern Western democracy. Russia is not an example of a modern Western democracy with noctiable(even with the occupation Russia probably has committed more human right abuses even limiting it just to post-soviet union era) human right abuses like treatment of dissidents and the conflict with Chechnya. You are right that all of them including United States did horrible actions in the past.However, the key thing is that was in past and in a different era where slavery was accepted till the 19th century, where colonialism was viewed as normal until the end of WW2. None of the actions are something to be proud and certainly none of it should be repeated.

Israel rarely has taken action against outposts with only 2(out of 105) settlements you were listed were illegal outposts and other than the disengagement(Ganim, Humas, Kadum, and Sha-nor were the 4 small settlements dismantled in the West Bank as part of the disengagement along with the settlements in gaza) no action against settlements. Bibi has tried to legalize the outposts.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ts-built-on-private-palestinian-land-1.389385

Regarding letter by mayor of Ariel that says its not occupation. It’s unanimous among international community that Israel occupies the West Bank.The UN security council,UNGA,International Red Cross committee, EU, USA, and International Court of Justice view it as occupied. This is also true of many Israelis with the Supreme Court ruling its occupied for decades.In the letter, he also claims that Israel safeguards basic human rights for Palestinians. That is not true in many areas like a military court system where conviction rate for Palestinians is 99.7%, house demolition and restrictions on Palestinian buildings mentioned, and military orders like order 101 that ban gathering of 10 or more that have political meaning with punishment of up to 10 year imprisonment or heavy fine). Even the late Ariel Sharon who during most of career was leading hawk and symbol of occultation said that its occultation and there is no other word for it and that its a bad thing.
http://www.btselem.org/demonstrations/military_order_101
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ank-it-must-give-up-land-held-by-idf-1.449909
www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/...ank-end-in-conviction-haaretz-learns-1.398369
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shgGvpkUMp4

In remark to Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
This doesn’t justify settlements. It still is violating 4th geneva convention. This article says that building, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates that belong to hostile state (it this case buildings and resources mentioned before that they belonged to Jordan before the six day war).

Those articles in the PLO covenant were written earlier when it was first founded in 1964. As mentioned before in 1996 and 1998 by an overwhelming majority voted to amend it. As mentioned before even in a statement by Bib at a press conference in 1998 he accepted that they amended it. As mentioned before Abbas has been a moderate better leader than Arafat ever was.

Regarding the Gaza buffer zone it says that many were attacked inside the 300m zone and also “the United Nations, aid agencies and rights groups say that Israel has unofficially and without warning extended the zone to up to 1km from the fence, leaving residents and farmers uncertain whether it is safe to access their land or property.” That is outside the 300m zone. This isn’t also during military campaign where witnesses could confuse the sound of rockets launching nearby with incoming bombs which means witnesses would be relatively reliable.
http://www.dci-palestine.org/documents/civilians-shot-gaza-buffer-zone

 

The Israeli Supreme Court says its illegal for Israel to confiscate private land and use it for civilian-only purposes.

 

(**) Embargo??? are you kidding? Israel is self reliant... they manufacture everything except <planes>, plant and grow anything for food, the demand for their electronics are in demand... these few things have the power to scuttle your wishy washy dream.

 

I do NOT!!!
Israel cannot (because of your statement) be occupying/taking (your word) what is not theirs from time immemorial.

And please stop your fixation on <olive trees> Israel has planted million trees from Italian, Greek and Spanish samplings... In a few years Israel will be exporting olives.

 

And still Arafat, as you said didnt accept it. It's odd to reject that kind of proposal. After all they (= the Arabs) had everything of what they want in that proposal.
It's just put on a question their desire for getting to an end of the conflict.

It's not was just violance after Camp David, but it was the second intifadah.

Your two last sources dont work.

I know that, and still today you have a new order that last until 2016, which means that we all need to just wait and see until 2016.

Every settlement that dont have permits need to be dismantled, as for the illegal Arab ones.
Like I said to you, the existance of settlements in the West Bank is legal, becuase article 49 from the 4th GC, that organizations used it to justify the "illegaly" is not applicable because Israel is not transfering it's citizens into the West Bank.

Israel will decide whether giving permits or not, like they are doing with the Israeli ones.

Area A is under the PA control, every civilian aspect needs to be dealt by the PA.

And according to your logic, all of the countries that I mentioned, can be refered as modern Western democracies becuase of their actiosn that occourd in the modern time.

Bibi in 1996, after his elections gave lands to the Arabs in the West Bnak. It's called "Wye Agreement" and "Hebron Agreement". So according to history, as I showed you here, Israel has taken actions against illegal settlements and even giving lands to the Arabs.

This is contradicting the Mandate, that it's validity has kept tanks to Article 80 of the UN charter, and contradicting when the ICJ reffirmed and recognized Article 80 and the Mandate in 1950, 1971 and 2004.
It's also contradicting history, because Isreal never occupied the West Bank, because until 1967 Jordan occupied it, and the world didnt recognized the Jordanian control over the West Bank, only the UK and Pakistan. Thus, ,in the West Bank in 1967, there was no legal holder,which means that when Israel took over the West Bank, it was legaly.
Of course that it as legaly as well because that the aciton that made Israel to took over, was when Jordan tried to enter Israel from the Government house, which according to international law, if a country is being attacke by other, then the country can strike back and even took over the lands from where the aggresor (= Jordan) attacked from.

And still, even with that order 101, a political demonstrations are happening.

If you are regarding Israel as an occupeir, then Article 55 says that Israel can enjoy "the fruits of the labour" from the properties that belong to the other side. Also Israel can lease such lands or cultivate them.

According to that, then those articles should no more be part of the PLO covenant, because of course according to you they amend it. Of course, as you can see, they didnt amend it. Even when you provided the same articles from their covenant, they were the exect articles that I provided.

[/QUOTE]

People are still entering the buffer zone, if it is for demonstrating against the fance, or to cultivate their lands. Arabs from Gaza try to infiltrate into Isreal, like they tried after the last operation. And after that you are trying to say that the IDF needs to "leave them alone and not to do anything with anyone that entering the buffer zone"?

BTW- Abbas congratulated Egypt for they 2km buffer zone:

Source'1: http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...01-fatah-denies-unity-government-mandate-over
Source'2: http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-to-expand-gaza-buffer-zone-to-up-to-2-kilometers/

So if an Egyptian buffer zone is accaptble to Arabs, then also they dont need to have problems with the Israeli buffer zone, and yet they criticize Israel for their buffer zone, that it is to defend itself.

 

Article 55 says that Israel can enjoy "the fruits of the labour" from the properties that belong to the other side. Also Israel can lease such lands or cultivate them.
Court's dicision is contradicting Article 55.

 

Stuntman and other interested readers... This is how Professor Steven Plaut from Haifa University who ascribes the situation prevailing in Israel to the leftist Media..

1. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/steven-plaut/the-israeli-left-and-its-captive-media-get-clobbered/

The Israeli Left and Its Captive Media Get Clobbered

~Posted By Steven Plaut On March 25, 2015

By far the most important aspect of the recent Likud victory was that once and for all everyone in the world could see how biased and unrepresentative the Israeli media are. With the exception of the freebie Israel Hayom, almost the entire print media in Israel are leftist, and with no exception at all the television and radio stations are also. The media in Israel operated a naked jihad against Netanyahu in the months before the election, candidly promoting a victory for the Labor Party&#8217;s Herzog team and his day camp staff.

The media made no attempt to disguise their partisan agenda. The bias in the Israeli media rivals that in the Soviet media before perestroika. Almost every page in Haaretz and Yediotwas an anti-Likud propaganda sheet. Channel Ten Television, propped up by state subsidies and handouts from the Likud government, was at least as biased and at least as open about campaigning for the Left. The bias extended down into the countless &#8220;polls&#8221; of voters that invariably showed Herzog with a strong lead over Netanyahu. When the media awoke from their wet dream after the poll booths closed, they reluctantly reported that &#8220;Netanyahu had made a comeback from behind.&#8221; Bullfeathers. Netanyahu was never behind. The media had invented a myth about Herzog being in the lead and they stuck to it.

By the morning after the election the entire media Titanic had sunk beneath the waves, after striking the iceberg of reality. It turns out that Israelis ignored the media seeking to &#8220;educate&#8221; them and instead they voted their own consciences. The media moguls will never forgive them for this. If anything, the arrogant insults hurled at voters for the &#8220;Right&#8221; just before the election by journalists and by artsy folks helped turn out the Likud vote.

The Left believed its own media fabrications. The Labor Party had reserved the large Rabin Square in Tel Aviv to hold its victory celebrations for the night after the voting. Labor Party activists had put out their own special newspaper, &#8220;Israel Tomorrow,&#8221; to outline the agenda they would pursue after their victory. It is now being used to wrap fish. The Israeli stock market bounced up 1.5% the day after the election.

One of the greatest pleasures of the past week has been reading Haaretz and Yediot, the two monolithically leftist Israeli print dailies. Schadenfreude has never been so sweet! Both had been part of the local conspiracy to pass a law that would have shut down the one Israeli newspaper that refused to toe the Leftist line, Israel Hayom. That bill got stuck in parliament and now will never pass. The squeals of anguish and agony from these two newspapers are by far the most entertaining pastime in all of Israel this past week, even better than watching the pre-Passover spring bloom of the trees and wildflowers.

The media Politruks were besides themselves with shock and awe. Democracy in Israel is dead, they chanted in unison, since real democracy must result in their own candidates winning. Haaretz was filled with columnists denouncing the putrid ingratitude of the Israeli people and their suicidal death wish manifested in their failure to vote for the Left. A leading leftist author, Alona Kimhi, denounced Israelis who voted for the Likud as superstitious Neanderthals. She added: &#8220;Drink some cyanide, f&#8212;ing Neanderthals. You won. Only death will save you from yourselves.&#8221;

Others in the Israeli Fascist Left launched a new campaign &#8212; one in which they are calling for retaliation against the working-class Israelis and residents of low-income &#8220;development towns&#8221; because these people overwhelmingly supported Netanyahu and the rest of the &#8220;Israeli Right.&#8221; The Leftist campaign is calling itself Lo Letet (Do not Give), and its Facebook page is here.

So here we have the spectacle of the same Leftists who pretend that they care about the underclass of low-income and working-class people now demanding that all social programs designed to assist such people in Israel be blocked as retaliation for their having voted Likud. Among the proposals of these enlightened progressive folks are to oppose raising the minimum wage, a remarkable idea since raising the minimum wage does not even help low-income people, and also to oppose welfare spending that could benefit working-class Israelis. In other words, the Left does not really care about low-income working-class people except as a tool that might jettison the Left into power. If low-income people dare to defy the Plantation Leftists and vote conservative, the Left wants them stripped of all support, funding that they now demand be refocused on the Northern Tel Aviv yuppie population.

The ink on the results of the election was not yet dry when the Leftist media were back in form, with their warnings of impending Netanyahu-produced doom. Israel will be isolated and destroyed for resisting capitulation to the demands of the Left and their &#8220;Palestinian&#8221; house pets, proclaim the media in near unison. Haaretz warns that the new government will launch a series of &#8220;anti-democratic bills.&#8221; When Haaretz and the Left speak about &#8220;anti-democratic bills,&#8221; what they really mean is democratic reforms, such as a law reining in Israel&#8217;s out-of-control imperious Supreme Court. That Court with its &#8220;judicial activism&#8221; ideology has been attempting to exercise judicial tyranny, insisting it has the right to invent laws the parliament opposes and block those the parliament passes.

The Supreme Court has for a generation attempted to suppress the will of the people through their parliament and replace it with diktats from unelected leftist judges who micro-manage the entire country in everything from military policy to job appointments. Refoming and restraining the Court may be the most important challenge of all for the new government. Haaretz is also worried that a new law might require that the picayune radical leftist anti-Israel NGOs operating within Israel and seeking to undermine the country might be required to reveal the sources of their funding. Oy Veh.

Of course the most important lesson from the election is that the two-state fantasy is dead in Israel. Very few Israelis ever believed that &#8220;two-states&#8221; was a &#8220;solution&#8221; of any sorts to the Middle East conflict, as opposed to being a recipe for endless Islamofascist terrorist aggression launched against the rump Israel from the &#8220;Palestinian&#8221; terror entity to be established in the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The only party running in the election on an unequivocal unconditional platform endorsing creation of a &#8220;Palestinian state&#8221; was Meretz and it got 4% of the vote, just barely squeaking in past the minimal vote threshold level for parliamentary representation.

The &#8220;United Arab List,&#8221; which is an amalgam of Stalinist and jihadist Arab factions whose only common denominator is opposition to the existence of Israel, is not really in favor of a two-state solution but rather in an Exterminate Israel solution. The Labor Party of Isaac Herzog is on paper in favor of a Palestinian state subject to a whole bunch of conditions and caveats, but it did not run on a Two-State Solution platform. Two States were never even mentioned by it. Its entire campaign was based on trying to convince people to vote for it because Netanyahu is such a cretin, and the result was that it got less than 1 vote in 5.

The golfer in the White House may groan all he wants, and so can his Secretary of State with the bad haircut. Obama is still complaining because Netanyahu pointed out that Arab voters in Israel were being bused in to vote with funds coming from outside Israel and so Jewish Israelis should also vote in droves. How racist of him. Yet all those funds smuggled in to the leftist Israeli NGOs campaigning to topple Netanyahu did not help the Left. Israelis made their position clear. They are not willing to commit national suicide to please Obama and the Eurotrash. &#8220;Two-states&#8221; is a nonstarter. Don&#8217;t even raise it as a discussion point option.



MOD EDIT - Rule 2

 

One could hardly call the recent election results a "clobbering" for the Israeli left.

Perhaps the region would be a better place with the demise of the Israeli neo-Zionist, war mongering, land thieving, racist right.
Oh look, bendor I can engage in the use of rhetorical labels and partisan misrepresentations of the opposition as well.

 

Drop of water on a hot tin roof... evaporation!

 

funny how you can ignore the exact same tactics you continually use.

FYI - Facts don't evaporate.

 

that refers to state property, not private property.

The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/195-200065?OpenDocument

 

People are still entering the buffer zone, if it is for demonstrating against the fance, or to cultivate their lands. Arabs from Gaza try to infiltrate into Isreal, like they tried after the last operation. And after that you are trying to say that the IDF needs to "leave them alone and not to do anything with anyone that entering the buffer zone"?

BTW- Abbas congratulated Egypt for they 2km buffer zone:




Source'1: http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...01-fatah-denies-unity-government-mandate-over
Source'2: http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-to-expand-gaza-buffer-zone-to-up-to-2-kilometers/

So if an Egyptian buffer zone is accaptble to Arabs, then also they dont need to have problems with the Israeli buffer zone, and yet they criticize Israel for their buffer zone, that it is to defend itself.[/QUOTE]



It&#8217;s unsure why he didn&#8217;t accept it. A map by them at Taba talks by some of them suggested that some wanted return of 100% not 97% of West Bank. According to Dennis Morris it&#8217;s because Arafat wasn&#8217;t prepared to end the conflict and couldn&#8217;t give up his image of a revolutionary fighter. I tend to believe Morris since Arafat could never act like a leader. Look at what he did with the PA. He also undermined Abbas and Queria when they were briefly prime ministers. He died being hated by everyone by fellow Arab leaders, Israelis, and many of his fellow Palestinians for his corruption.

Which sources didn&#8217;t work? I clicked on the dci link and Sharon speech link which were the last two and they worked. I hope it does get dismantled but don&#8217;t see that especially with upcoming government. As mentioned in the quote this was after several Supreme Court rulings to dismantle it.

Every outpost should be dismantled but thats not going to happen. As mentioned Arabs are forced to build in area C without permits due to restrictions mentioned before by the Israelis.
That is true regarding Area A. However they have no control over most of the areas surrounding areas A and B since they are land reserves.

That&#8217;s not what my logic said. If any of those countries did that today they would be loudly condemned and opposed(especially your most repugnant example the Holocaust) along with not being viewed as a modern Western democracy.

According to your history they have taken action against 2 out of over 100 illegal outposts which all of them should be dismantled. The Wye accord caused Israel to withdraw from most of Hebron. It still left the settler community in Hebron. A community that is among the most extreme of the settlers that continues to abuse nearby Palestinian community and shamelessly admire Baruch Goldstein who massacred 29 Palestinians in 1994.

The mandate ended once the state of Israel was formed since that was the whole point of the mandate. That still makes it occupation. It doesn&#8217;t matter that Jordanian occupation wasn&#8217;t recognized either or that it was a defensive war. Definition of occupation under article 42 of Hague Convention says &#8220;territory is considered occupied when its placed under authority of the hostile army.&#8221; That definition says nothing about the status of the territory or whether it was a war of defense. Even if for argument&#8217;s sake its not occupied. How does that justify the human right abuses mentioned in the West Bank like house demolition?
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/review/2012/irrc-885-ferraro.pdf

Order 101 still goes against international law and obviously very undemocratic. Keep in mind the law says any gathering of 10 or more which means its not just restricted to public area. If a soldier wanted to he could send someone for jail for up to 10 years if a group of people were conducting political activity at someone house. Demonstrations in the West Bank are often restricted. To be fair some of them did end up violent by throwing stones. However there are even restrictions against peaceful ones. Here is an except from a leaked cable
&#8220;Mizrachi warned that he will start sending his trucks with "dirty water" to break up these protests, even if they are not violent, because they serve no purpose other than creating friction. (NOTE: dirty water is a reference to the IDF's chemically treated water that duplicates the effects of skunk spray. End note.) Mizrachi said he heard rumors that Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad was planning to attend one of these protests, adding that if Fayyad gets sprayed with dirty water, it will make everyone look bad&#8221;
&#8220;Less violent demonstrations are likely to stymie the IDF. As MOD Pol-Mil chief Amos Gilad told USG interlocutors recently, "we don't do Gandhi very well." The IDF impatience with these demonstrations may also be connected to the recent arrests of foreign NGO workers with expired or solely tourist visas who have been attending, and often organizing, the protests. The GoI reportedly ceased issuing B1 work visas to the foreign staff of NGOs working in the occupied territories; for several months now it has restricted them and their families to B2 visitor visas with varying durations and sometmies limited to single-entry. On February 10, officials from the MOI immigration enforcement unit (the "Oz" unit) told PolOff that they made the arrests of NGO workers in the West Bank at the request of the IDF. However, the court ruled that the Oz unit cannot operate beyond the Green Line, and subsequently released the detainees, who were mostly European. The Oz unit officials told PolOff that they will not challenge that ruling and have no further operations planned in the West Bank. &#8220;
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/wikiIsrael35.html

Israel is an occupier and that&#8217;s not what article 55 says. Here is what it says &#8220;he occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct.&#8221;
It says any public building, real property, forests, and agricultural works that belonged to the hostile state. In this case this is Jordan. Obviously the settlements did not belong to Jordan before the six day war. The 4th geneva convention says voluntary settling of civilian population in occupied is illegal in the form of transfer or forced with the case of deportation into occupied territory. This is emphasized again in article 49 with "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/user/images/the geneva convention-article-49.pdf

As noted in that source it was voted by an overwhelming majority in 1996 to amend the covenant. As noted by current Shin Bet chief Abbas doesn&#8217;t support terror or violence with West Bank largely quiet since end of second intifada(with most attacks from West Bank lone gunman attacks).

As regarding the buffer zone. It is suppose to be 300m as noted in the article. Also noted people have been shot beyond 300m which is outside the buffer zone.

 

According to the UK Manual, is accepteble to use temporary private lands to military needs:

Source: https://books.google.co.il/books?id... land for military needs is accepted.&f=false

Of course, that also Jordan used the UK Manual for their Manual, and this manual is been respected by Israel. This is part of the laws that Israel is respecting today in the West Bank.

 

It is logical opinion (the one of Dennis Morris), and it is also rainforced by history, when he was behind the second intifadah.

Those two:
1. http://www.dci-palestine.org/documen...za-buffer-zone
2. http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...s_fishers.html

As I said, we all just need to wait and see until 2016.

Illegal settlements need to be dismanteled, the legal ones need to stay put.

And still they have control over Areas A and B.

All those countries and their actions that I showed, made in the modern timese, and there was no condemination.

The Jewish community in Hebron is legal Jewish community. There is evidences of Jewish existence there from the Bible time until the 20th century.
In 1890 there were 1500 Jews in that community. In the Arab riot of 1929, the Arabs killed 67 people from that community, and the Arab made it's residents to fled into Jerusalem, ,which made the Arabs steal goods that were belong to the Jews. In this community there is alot of legal Jewish propert, like courtyard Jews, "Hadasa House", cemetery plots, and more.
According to the Jordanian Register Custodian of Enemy mentioned twenty-four buildings and twenty plots of land and people of Jewish institutions in Hebron.

The British Mandate indeed ended, but the Mandate wasnt over, and it's validity is kep thanks to Article 80 of the UN Charter.

An occupation can be called when country A take over lands that belong to country B, and when the Jordanian control wasnt recognized, it makes the West Bank belonged to no one, between 1948 until 1967. Moreover, according to international law, when a country is been attacked by another country, the defensive country can attack back and if lands is been took over by her in the process, then it is accepteble.

When there is demolition of illegal houses, then it is not an abuse of humen right, but protect the law.

And still such deminstration is been condected by the Arabs in the West Bank, and no one is been errested because of order 101.

From personal experience I can tell you, that acting against demonstration (if a demonstration is been harm other people) it always been confirmed by higher officers. If the demonstration doesnt go out of propotion, then the military cant act and wont have the confirmation to do something against the demonstration, exept of been out near it and watch.

This is the exect thing that I provided. If you are telling me that what I provided wasnt true, then you are saying that ICRC is wrong.

It was the responsibility of Jordan to keep the status of the Jewish settlements valid, which they did, but of course it didnt stop them to build on them Arab cities. Like Qalandiya.

Israel isnt transfering it's citizens to the West Bank, thus Article 49 in that case is not applicable.

So once again:
According to that, then those articles should no more be part of the PLO covenant, because of course according to you they amend it. Of course, as you can see, they didnt amend it. Even when you provided the same articles from their covenant, they were the exect articles that I provided.

Abbas congratulated Egypt for they 2km buffer zone:

Source'1: http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/intern...t-mandate-over
Source'2: http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-t...-2-kilometers/

So if an Egyptian buffer zone is accaptble to Arabs, then also they dont need to have problems with the Israeli buffer zone, and yet they criticize Israel for their buffer zone, that it is to defend itself.

 

first you cite Geneva Conventions Article 49, and you are shown you are wrong.

Then you cite Hague Convention Article 45, and you are shown you are wrong.

now you cite some British law?

lol!!!! dude, its over.

 

Clobbering is a bit of exaggeration. The main outcome of the election, Netanyahu remaining prime minister even before votes starting to get counted was still very likely. Victory by a six seat margin mostly at the expense of Jewish home seats was unexpected along with larger than expected right:religious bloc of 67 rather than expected 64 or 63. Assuming Herzog actually tied or even got ahead he still probably would not become prime minister considering left-arab bloc’s smaller size and parties like Shas and UTJ would have to sit with unlikely partners like Yesh Atud.

Israeli leftists as species that differs from rational homo sapiens(so David Ben Gurion,Moshe Dayan,Ezer Weizmann, Ariel Sharon(a monster though),Tzipi Livni,Ehud Olmert,Ami Ayalon, Avraham Shalom,Carmi Gillon,Yaakov Peri,Mattiyahu Peled,among others not rational and differ as a species)?

Israeli Leftists: Believe the only way to defeat terrorism is by agreeing to the demands of the terrorists.
Non-Leftists: Believe the only way to defeat terrorism is by terrorizing the terrorists
As mentioned before,PA in the West Bank is not interested in terrorism, violence or causing another intifada and this is according to person at highest position responsible for Israel’s domestic security: Shin Bet head Yoram Cohen.


Israeli Leftists: Believe the entire Middle East conflict is about the attempt to deny self-determination to Palestinians.
Non-Leftists: Believe the entire Middle East conflict is about the attempt to deny self-determination to Jews.
The entire Middle East conflict not just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the fallout from the end of the Ottoman Empire after WW1 and the resulting changes in the borders. In retrospect one of the biggest mistake was the Europeans not following up on the promise to Sharif of Mecca;Hussein Ali for revolting against the Ottomans in return for a big Arab state. Ali ended up losing to Abdul Saud in 1924 founder of Saudi Arabia. Ali’s son Faisal signed the Fasial-Weizmann Agreement which promised cooperation with and welcomed the Zionists. However the agreement was contingent on the promise of a big Arab state.

*. Israeli Leftists: Believe the key to peace is removing Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.
Non-Leftists: Believe the key to peace is removing PLO/Hamas occupation of Israeli lands.
PLO/Hamas don’t occupy Israeli lands. As mentioned before it’s unanimous among international community and many Israelis. It’s not just those of Meretz or Peace Now which you would expect to agree on that. This is the consensus of past 6 Shin Bet heads people at the highest level responsible for Israel’s domestic security. This is consensus of the late Sharon whose career can be described as polar opposite of Meretz and Peace Now along with many of his fellow Likniks like Livni and Olmert. As mentioned before this includes nearly all of Israel’s founders including its founding father David Ben Gurion. It’s more accurate to describe the key to for Israel to stay as a Jewish and democratic state is to end the occupation. I can’t expect peace after all the violence and abuse that both societies are going through and have gone through the past decades. Ending the occupation can help for peace in long term through ending abuses associated with the occupation. As Yesh Atud said what’s needed with the Israeli and Palestinian society is a divorce. Below is a link to interview with widow of Moshe Dayan. In the interview she says Zionism has run its course. I disagree but its looking more likely with the occupation deepening. Again a lot of these people are part of Israeli establishment or in the case of Livni and Olmert for decades part of the right. Outside Likud and those to the right no one wants the occupation to continue.
http://www.newsweek.com/moshe-dayans-widow-ruth-zionist-dream-has-run-its-course-68099

. Israeli Leftists: Believe that PLO violence is because Israel was not generous enough in its offers to the Palestinians.
Non-Leftists: Believe that PLO violence is caused by any offers of concessions to the Palestinians.
Since the end of second intifada most of the violence has been from Hamas in Gaza. It has been largely quiet in the West Bank. Most of the attacks from the West Bank were lone gunman. How does actions like house demolition and restrictions on Palestinian building while settlements grew make Israel more secure?

*. Israeli Leftists: Believe that Israeli gestures and concessions reassure the Palestinians and make them more moderate.
Non-Leftists: Believe that Israeli gestures and concessions convince the Arabs that Israel is weak, vulnerable, and destroyable.
What has seemed to make the Palestinian leadership more moderate was no longer having Arafat as the leader of the PA(combined with failure of Palestinians realizing that it failed to achieve anything) who didn’t seem to want to give his role as revolutionary.


*. Israeli Leftists: Believe that current Palestinian violence and atrocities are caused by Israel’s refusal to remove Jewish settlements from the West Bank and Gaza.
Non-Leftists: Believe that current Palestinian violence and atrocities are caused by Israel's removing Jewish settlements from Gaza's Hamastan and from the West Bank.
As mentioned before violence from the West Bank has largely ended. Rocket attacks have been from Gaza since 2001. End of occupation is needed for violence to end long term.

*. Israeli Leftists: Believe that peace can only be achieved through granting statehood to the Palestinians.
Non-Leftists: Believe that peace can only be achieved through Denazification of the Palestinians.
As mentioned before peace is not going to happen in the short term but as long as occupation there is not even possible for peace in long term.

. Israeli Leftists: Believe that the quintessence of the Middle East conflict is the injustice perpetrated against Arabs by Jews.
Non-Leftists: Believe that the quintessence of the Middle East conflict is the injustice perpetrated against Jews by Arabs.
The quintessence of the Middle East conflict was the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the resulting chaos of setting new borders. Both sides have committed injustice no side is innocent. Each side can site numerous atrocities whether its PLO attacks in the past like Munich massacre or massacres Israelis did like Qibya, Bureji, Damascus gate bombing,Haifa oil refriney bombing and Arab reprisal, explosion during 1948 war and subsequent explosion of Jews by Arabs after 1948,etc. Anyone on both sides who think they are the only ones experienced injustice is wrong. The question is what what is the best action to do now.

*. Israeli Leftists: Insist Jews have only themselves to blame for the hostility and hatred directed against them.
Non-Leftists: Insist Leftists have only themselves to blame for the hostility and hatred directed against them.
Blame for hostility is on both sides. Actions from the occupation like house demolition, abuse from settlers, and abusive military court system along with administrative detention builds up resentment among Palestinians. While actions like rocket attacks from Gaza build up support for the right in Israel

Israeli Leftists: Insist they are in fact loyal, patriot citizens who seek only the best for their country.
Non-Leftists: Agree, except they note that Israeli Leftists regard Palestine as their country.
As I mentioned before, many of them are from the Israeli establishment and have served Israel for many years. All of them like David Ben Gurion, past Shin Bet heads, Ehud Barak,Moshe Dayan, and Ezer Weizmann served Israel for many years in high level positions listed in the link before. Many of them were also involved with atrocities like Sharon with the Palestinians and aren’t well liked by the Palestinians to say the least.
http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/398808-historic-trend-israeli-hawks-turning-doves.html

*. Israeli Leftists: Believe Arab violence is caused by Israel using excessive force to contain it.
Non-Leftists: Believe Arab violence is caused by Israel using insufficient force to contain it.
Cause of violence with complex with atrocities committed against both sides going back before the state was founded. Israel has used overwhelming force in Gaza last summer in Gaza with over 2,000 Palestinian deaths and 66 soldiers along with 6 civilians dead as a result and another round is likely. Overwhelming force was used in the West Bank and kept it quiet for a while until the first intifada. Overwhelming force was used in response to second intifada and that has kept it mostly quiet. It will probably stay that way if the current approach(obviously violence especially against civilians should not be used) in the West Bank succeed in the upcoming years. Even though no military operations are ongoing abuses continue with examples like house demolition and administrative detention etc,. The conflict is not black and white something the right refuse to consider.

Israeli Leftists: Believe there is no military solution to the problem of terrorism.
Non-Leftists: Believe there is no non-military solution to the problem of terrorism
Terrorism is part of the larger issue of two different people occupying the same land that abused to each other for the past decades while both(with some on both sides all of the same land) wanting some of the same land. As mentioned before since the end of second intifada the West Bank has been largely quiet with most of the attacks being lone gunman attacks.


Leftist US Jewish pagans: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-dennis-prager
US Jews don’t like the path Bibi is taking Israel. They don’t like his anti-democratic values. They want Israel to remain a Jewish democratic state. They don’t want someone in the words of former Shin Bet head Ami Ayalon “taking very sure and measured steps to a point where the State of Israel will not be a democracy or a home for the Jewish people”
They don’t want someone to further an occupation that is described in the words of another former Shin Bet head(Avraham Shalom this is the Shin Bet head that covered in the bus 400 affair where he ordered the execution of two terrorists and than attempted to cover it up) “We've become cruel. To ourselves as well, but mainly to the occupied population." Our army has become "a brutal occupation force, similar to the Germans in World War II. Similar, not identical."—Shalom, who clarifies that he is referring to the Nazis' persecution of non-Jewish minorities. Another former head stated We are making the lives of millions [of Palestinians] unbearable, into prolonged human suffering, [and] it kills me.”
How is this being anti semitic or Jewish pagan?

 

I provided Article 45 from the 4th GC because the Israeli Supreme Court has used that, so I used this article and showed you that according to that article the settlements are not illegal

After covering the legitimecy from 4th GC point of view, I used Article 55 (not 45) from Hague Convention, because in your comment you talked about lands that Israel uses them in the West Bank, so I showed you that according to Article 55 a use of state lands that were used by other state (Jordan) is accapptble according to this convention.

After I used Article 55, you said that you are refering to the private lands in the West Bank, so I provided you with the British law, The UK Manual, that says that the manual allows temporary requisitions of private immovable property on the basis of the military necessity test, therefore, accoridng to the British law that Israel respect in the West Bank, the use of private lands by Israel is accaptble as well.

Right, it's over. For you.

 

article 45 of the GC is irrelevent, and the Israeli Supreme Court never cited it.

- - - Updated - - -

and this is a pathetic diversion, cause we are talking about PRIVATE lands, not state-owned lands.

- - - Updated - - -

Israel has sworn to abide by INTERNATIONAL LAW, and is required to abide by INTERNATIONAL LAW, not British Law.

Settlements built using private land, in Occupied Territory, which are purely civilian settlements, are illegal according to INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

Thats why I also gave you the British law, which is valid in the West Bank, and Israel respect.

Israel respecting the 4th GC and the Hague Convention that regared to occupy territory, not because they have to but because of good will. That's what also Israel has said. But respecting and fulfilling the international law it doesnt mean that the actual laws of the territory need to be cenceled, therefore, the British law is part of the laws that Israel is respecting and fulfilling in the West Bank, what means that a use of private lands in the West Bank is acceptble and valid.

The British law is part of the laws there are in the West Bank, thus Israel have to obey the laws in the area, which is British law, Jordanian law and Ottoman law.

 

True that, but it's the right that doesn't want to confront or think about those complexities. The right likes to boil it down to the simplest "kill 'em all" ideas.