Pure Zionism by the right in Israel

the ICJ never once ruled on the right of Jews to settle in the West Bank, in 1950 or 1971 or 2004.

The Palestine Mandate never gave the Jews exclusive rights to settlement in the West Bank.

 

PRIOR TO 1948, which means PRIOR TO THE DECLARATION OF ISREALI INDEPENDENCE.

I am well aware of history, but it seems you can't discern the difference between history and the present.

Yes, Israel administers Israeli law within the settlements, and Israeli military occupation law in the rest of the territories with the exception of the PA administered area which is under Palestinian Basic law. There is not ottoman law, no Jordanian law, and no English common law (only its derivative basic laws)

there is no reinforcement of the present by attempting to make such a spurious claim.

What are you smoking? In no way does the UN recognize the "jewish right" to the west bank. Article 80 refers to trusteeships. The "trusteeship system" never applied because immediately upon the ending of the Mandate, Israel declared independence. Are you aware of what "independence" means in terms of a nation state?

Oh my. I guess it was all the arabs fault. much like its all Obama's fault or all Bush's fault. Eban said it best - "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity", but subsequent Israeli governments also didn't want it implemented to its full extent. I guess you are not familiar with neo-Zionist visions of Eretz Ysroel and the extent to which they are prepared to go to attain such.

Yes. Arafat couldn't very well blame himself, now could he?

 

I'd love to see this case where the ICJ affirmed the Jews' exclusive right to settlement in the West Bank, and their right to confiscate private land for Jewish-only non-military settlements.

 

They did, in their adlvisory opinions.

The Mandate for Palestine give the irrevocable right over the area of "Palestine", from the Jordan river to the sea.

 

So are you saying that the West Bank is part of Isreal?

As I wrote, I use history to rainforce the present.

There are such laws, those are the laws that was respected from the Ottoman period until nowadays, as I already showed you from the research of Prof. Eyal Zamir and Prof. Eyal Benvenisti, an attorney and professor of human rights at Tel Aviv University's Faculty of Law. Since 2003 he has been part of the Global Law Faculty at New York University School of Law.

A little bit about Prof. Eyal Zamir- http://law.huji.ac.il/eng/segel.asp?staff_id=44&cat=441

This is not spurious claim, but a claim that have historical evidences, as I already showed here.

as Prof. Rostow, an international law experts said:

Source: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=...ation.&f=false

Or maybe you are saying that an international law expert didnt know what he was talking about?

Israel offered to the Arabs what they wanted, a state in the West Bank, removal of settlements, East Jerusalem will be part of the Arab state, a return of undisclosed amount of "Palestinian refugees" into Israel + financial compensation for all who does not include in that return, and yet, they refused.

Eben is correct, the Arabs indeed missed alot of opportunities in the past, but of course it was not because someone made them miss it, but it was becuase thye rejected every opportunity to get their state.

 

The ICJ reaffirmed Article 80 of the UN Charter. For example, in their advisory opinion from 1971was written:
"When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. ... The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations]."

Source: http://www.mandateforpalestine.org/02mm--mandate-is-valid.html

Which means, that neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can change the status of Jewish settlement as it was set in the Mandate.

 

Nope, not even remotely close.

But it doesn't it merely shows the path that change took.

there was an Ottoman law the prohibited killing. Does that mean that Ottoman law is "respected" today in Israel or the West Bank. NOPE. its been ENTIRELY replaced by other legal codes.

Apparently despite it being pointed out to you, your academic reference was in regard to the legal situation and codes in place PRIOR to Israeli independence in 1948.
It does not address the current legal codes of the region.

See above.

Source: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=...ation.&f=false

Or maybe you are saying that an international law expert didnt know what he was talking about?[/quote]

For a respected legal expert, he seems rather out of touch. The league of Nations was a failure that was absorbed by the UN. the mandates of the League have long been replaced by the organization that replaced it.

And as for article 80 of the UN charter, it is part of Chapter XII which deals with the trusteeship system which did not apply to the UN's official partition plan for the end of British Mandate.

I think rather than the experts not knowing what they are talking about, its more like your understanding of what they were actually discussing is skewed.

BTW, your link doesn't work.

Now that is pure unmitigated bullcrap hasbara.

Perhaps you can provide some source for this fantasy wunderoffer from the Israelis?


E

Yes that is exactly what Eban said, THEY never miss an opportunity. They did not reject every opportunity to establish their own state. Or do you think that the establishment of the PA was simply a bone thrown to them?

 

that is 100% wrong and you are 1000% misrepresenting the findings of the ICJ.

Nevermind the fact that the ICJ has already stated that the West Bank is under Israeli Occupation and all Israeli settlements are illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

for exclusively Jewish settlement?

that is 100% false and you know it.

- - - Updated - - -

yes, the ICJ did rule that all Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are illegal.

 

No actually it doesn't because the Mandate was superseded by the UN Palestinian/Israeli Partition Plan, which arrived DOA with Israel's declaration of Independence.

The Mandate survived the demise of the league of nations, but it didn't survive upon the formal UN adoption of the Partition Plan, which was to kick in once the Mandate ended. Whatever was in the Mandate was then relegated to history and pissing contests.

 

its absurd for anyone to suggest that the Palestine Mandate is still in effect.

 

He's getting this crap from this site:

THIS IS MY LAND seems to be the content title of the site and is full of absolute spurious nonsense.
http://www.mandateforpalestine.org/02mm--mandate-is-valid.html

 

Does Prof. Rostow, Profesor of international law, is nobody? if not, then you should trust what he said about the West Bank (that it is belong to the Jews and that the Mandate is not over).

I didn’t say he was nobody. But that’s one expert out of many. I have also cited another professor(John Quigley) who said otherwise yet according to your his opinion doesn’t seem to matter. I cited also other people like the Israeli Supreme Court the highest judicial body in Israel. Yet that doesn’t seem to matter to you. I have cited people like David Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan who if it wasn’t for them there wouldn’t be Israel(can you say the same for any right wing figure beside arguable Begin?) that doesn’t seem to matter to you. I have cited international groups like International Red Cross committee that doesn’t seem to matter to you. I have cited Theodore Meron legal advisor to the Israeli foreign ministry at the time after the six day war that doesn’t seem to matter to you.

Outside settlers themselves and supporters mainly in right wing parties like Likud and Jewish Home its considered occupied territory.
Not according to international law experts.

According most international law experts like John Quigley its considered occupied. This is according to the Supreme Court of Israel and the International Court of Justice. In addition international law expert for the Red Cross:Anton Camen notes that its occupation . This is in addition to Israeli experts on international law like Eyal Benvenisti, Yuval Shany and David Kretzme. Does any of their words count for nothing? If most law experts don’t regard it as occupied then why are you worried about Palestinians joining the ICC?
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-the-law-prohibits-settlement-activities-354425

So are you saying that because someone consider something as something, then that something is right? If so, then also I can consider Sinai part of Israel, but does that say that it is true? no, right? and that's because the reality and history, correct? if so, then also the West Bank can be dealt with as "occupied territory", beause history is cotradicting that cinsidiration.

I didn’t say that. This also isn’t just someone. This is most of the world and rest of the international community. This also doesn't’ just include rejectist Arab states like Syria and in the case of Iran rejectist Persian state. This also includes Israel’s closest allies. History? The Palestinians in the West Bank have resided there for 1,400 years. The Israeli settler themselves are immigrants that make aliya from countries like Russia and United States or if they are sabra or native Israelis they are Ashkenazi Jews or Jews from European descent or in some cases(although I don’t believe in most cases since they were integrated in Israeli society after spending time in transit camps) Mizrahri Jews descended from Jews expelled from Arab countries after 1948(though not from Palestine themselves). Yes there has been a Jewish presence in Palestine for thousands of years. However, the settlers and vast majority of Israel’s Jewish population haven’t lived here for hundreds(at the most some of the Ashkenazi Jews with the first aliya of the late 1800’s) of years.

Article 49 is not relevent to the current reality in the West Bank, because Israel is not transfering it's citizens to the West Bank.

Again transfer includes civilian population voluntary settling in the occupied territory. Otherwise it would just say it’s illegal to deport(since that is what deport means; forced transfer) civilian population onto the West Bank. International law expert Antom Camen lists the reasons why article 49 means this.
“the prohibition of settlement activities seeks to protect the population in the occupied territory from the changes resulting from nationals of the occupying power populating the territory. These changes can be far-reaching, and can profoundly affect the demographic characteristics of the territory, the fabric of the entire society there and all aspects of life.
There are now hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers living in areas occupied in 1967. This influx has resulted in large-scale confiscations of land, which has been appropriated for the various purposes of building settlements and populating them, building the roads which serve them, and for securing the areas surrounding them. It would seem evident that this could not but have a profound impact on the lives of Palestinians living in the occupied territory, resulting in denial of access to land, depriving them of their property rights and severely restricting movement, including for very basic human needs, such as accessing services for health and education, work or even just family life.”
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-the-law-prohibits-settlement-activities-354425

There is right of the Jews over Gaza and the West Bank, it is the Mandate, that Article 80 of the UN Charter kept it's validity.
Article 80 was created in San Francisco, 1945 ,which of course was created esspecialy to keep the Mandate valid.

The mandate is over. The promise of the mandate and its purpose was fulfilled once Israel was formed. Thus, the trust is over. As shown in the quote before by David Ben Gurion the mandate is over.


Also Prof. Rostow, an international law experts said:
The Fourth Geneva Convention applies only, according to Article 2, to occupation of territory belonging to 'another High Contracting Party': and Jordan cannot show any such title to the West Bank, not Egypt to Gaza.
Which means that according to the 4th GC itself, this convention cannot be applicable in the West Bank the territory was not belonged to 'another High Contracting Party’.

That’s not what article 2 says. Here is what it says
”in addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”
It says it applies in cases of war or armed conflict between two or more high contracting parties.
Definition of high contracting parties is the representatives of states who have signed or ratified a treaty. In other words this says it applies in cases of armed conflict between two or more parties that have signed or ratified 4th geneva convention. 4th geneva convention doesn’t actually define what occupation is either. Article 42 of the Hague Convention of 1907 does. It says “ Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” In this definition, it doesn’t mention whether or not the territory is disputed. It says occupation starts once a territory is placed under authority of hostile army which happened after the six day war.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
http://www.law-pedia.com/high-contracting-parties.htm
https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/...y/Geneva Convention IV 1907 – Section III.pdf


The laws that is been protected in the West Bank by Israel is the British law, Jordanian law, Ottoman law and the Israeli law.

Israel uses military law with orders like 101 mentioned before. There was a comment on here about the British manual saying it’s okay to temporary appropriate private land for military purpose. International law does say that but that is not how its used in the West Bank. From 1967 to Supreme Court ruling in 1979 it was legal to use private land for settlements even though that’s not for military or temporary need. In addition some of the illegal outposts are also on private land. Since 1979 Israel has used a different interpretation of public land law than under Jordanians, British and Ottomans to get around the court ruling. Here is excerpt from a report on it
“ comparative survey B’Tselem conducted in the Ramallah District for its report Under the Guise of Legality (2012), demonstrates dramatic differences between the proportion of land that the Jordanian authorities had classified as government property in areas in which ownership deeds had been registered and the proportion of land that Israel declared as state land in areas in which the Jordanians had not yet registered land ownership deeds in 1967. The results of the survey support the conclusion that a significant percentage of the land that Israel declared as state land is actually privately owned Palestinian property, which was appropriated from its lawful owners through legal manipulations and in violation of both local and international law. [For examples, click here.]”
The process employed in taking over land breaches the basic principles of due process and the principles of natural justice. In many cases, Palestinian residents were unaware that their land had been registered as state land, and by the time they discovered this, it was too late to appeal. The burden of proof always rests with the Palestinian claiming ownership of the land. Even if this burden of proof is met, there may be cases in which the land would remain registered in the name of the state on the grounds that it had been handed over to a settlement "in good faith."
Even had these lands been lawfully declared state land, international law stipulates that state lands, including those declared before 1967, are meant to be public areas, to serve the population of the occupied territory, namely, the Palestinian public, not the State of Israel or its citizens. As an occupying power, Israel is not the sovereign in the Occupied Territories. Therefore, it does not own the land, even if declared state land. In practice, Israel almost completely prohibits Palestinian construction and development on so-called state lands and designates them almost exclusively for settlements, the military and Israeli infrastructure facilities: 94% of state land in Area C are located within the jurisdiction of the settlements and their regional councils.
The Civil Administration rarely allocates land declared as state land to Palestinians. Pursuant to a High Court petition filed by two Israeli NGOs – The Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Bimkom – the Civil Administration provided the following information: since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in 1967, of the lands in Area C that had been declared state land, the Civil Administration has allocated to Palestinians only 0.7% (860 hectares).
http://www.btselem.org/area_c/state_lands

the right is protected by Article 80 of the United Nation Charter. The Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law, considered to be trusts, indeed 'sacred trusts'.
The British Mandate was over in 1948, not the Mandate for Palestine.
The Mandate was given back to the UN in 1947, thus in 1948 it couldnt be over, because the Mandate was in the hands and the responsibility to fulfill it by the UN and not Britain.

Once the mandate was given back to UN hands and responsibility it fulfilled when Israel became a state was recognized and became part of the UN.

Quote Originally Posted by xavierphoenix View Post
With the expectation of the gulf states and Turkey every state in the Middle East was formed from either a French or British mandate. All the mandates for these states ended after they became independent since the purpose of the mandate was for the British and French to govern these territories till they can govern themselves.
Right, the British Mandate ened, not the Mandate for Palestine. Also the mandate for Palestine.

Didn't you just say the British mandate transferred over and became responsibility of the UN? By that logic once Israel became independent and part of the UN it fulfilled its responsibility.

Prof. Rostow talked about it:
This right is protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which provides that unless a trusteeship agreement is agreed upon (which was not done for the Palestine Mandate), nothing in the chapter shall be construed in and of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
He added:
A trust’—as in Article 80 of the UN Charter—does not end because the trustee dies ... the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine—the area west of the Jordan—survived the British withdrawal in 1948. ... They are parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security Council.
Source: http://www.mandateforpalestine.org/0...-is-valid.html

Consent of the security council(how many times has America blocked a security council resolution in criticizing the occupation? now even America has had enough of Bibi and are signaling they may not use there veto on a resolution for Palestinian statehood.) The security council recognizes the territories as occupied and has called for a withdrawal(yes I understand not from all but most of territories since it calls for withdrawal to secure borders).

In addition,the British white paper of 1922 clarified that in the Balfour declaration it says Jewish home should be founded in Palestine not necessary all of Palestine.
http://www.academia.edu/6066378/Arti...nal_Relations_
So are you saying that the West Bank is not part of “Palestine"?

No I”m saying the purpose for it was completed. The mandate was based on the Balfour declaration which promised a Jewish home in Palestine. The white paper clarifies it. That promise was fulfilled.

On the subject of illegal outposts again. Dismantling 2 illegal outposts and part of one (Amona) is not a great accomplishment. Israel agreed to dismantle them since Sharon agreed to the roadmap. They are always illegal, not one of them is suppose to exist. Instead, they get supplied water and electricity.

It can be agreed that Arafat was despicable. However, he doesn’t rule anymore. Abbas has been much better and unlike Arafat rejects violence both in word and in action and is not interested in an intifada. There also has been people on both sides that were despicable. On the Israeli side you had Sharon whose whole career was committing atrocities against Palestinians. You also had Yitzhak Shamir who said it was permissible to lie for the state of Israel. What use is arguing which side has experimented more injustice or suffering?

 

So it doesnt contradict what I provided.

It shows you historical evidences that support my claims.

The Ottoman law is respected in the West Bank, today the soldiers dont kill Arabs like that, but the soldier kill Arabs (like my commander when I was in the army), after an Arab try to attack and hurt you, after that, it is acceptable.

My academic reference was in regard if the lagitimacy of settlements in the West Bank, and it was from 1995, thus this reference is showing that the laws that were prior to 1948, like the Ottoman and the British laws (the Jordanian was after 194, are still need to be respected because that laws (with the Jordanian ones) are part of the set of laws in the West Bank, as I showed you.

But I guess Prof. of law and an attorny and prof. of humen rights are not a valid sources for you, ah?

And thanks to Article 80, the Mandate that was created at the time of the League of Nations, stayed valid because of this Article.
Article 80 was created esspecialy to keep the Mandate valid in the San Francisco Confference.

The partition plan is not valid, because it needed to be agreed on both sides, but the Arabs (after the Jews accepted it) rejected the plan, which made the partition plan not valid and couldnt be fullfiled, thus the validity of the Mandate because of Article 80 is still existing.

I understand what they are talking about, and I brought to you the exact qoutes of them saying what they said.

Which one?

Here is a short video about what Israel offered to the Arabs in Camp David:
[video=youtube;HcSYUItDdZc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcSYUItDdZc[/video]

The source for this offer was Dennis Ross, a lead U.S. nagotiator that was part of the talks in Camp David.

The Arabs missed an opportunity in 1947, they missed an opportunity at Camp David, they Missed an opportunity at Taba, they missed an opportunity when Olmert's offer etc.

 

I'm getting the information from books, historians and experts, like Prof. Rostow, or maybe Prof. Rostow which was Dean of Yale Law School and served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President Lyndon Johnson. Also Prof. Rostow helped draft resolution 242.
Does that man, for example, talked nonsense? is full of (*)(*)(*)(*)?

Or maybe Prof. Eyal Benvenisti, an attorney and professor of human rights at Tel Aviv University's Faculty of Law. Since 2003 he has been part of the Global Law Faculty at New York University School of Law, is taking nonsense?

Or maybe Judge, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, a man specializing in International Law and founder of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the Law Faculty in Cambridge University. he also apeared infornt of the ICJ several times, is also taking nonsense?

Or maybe Prof. Stone, a distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the Hastings College of Law, and an author of 27 books on jurisprudence and international law, and is hailed by his official biography at the Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence as one of the premier legal theorists, was also taking nonsense?

ETC.

 

And that is contradicting Article 80 of the UN Charter, Article 49 of the 4th GC.

I said that they reaffirmed Article 80, which keep the Mandate valid. The Mandate is giving the right to Jews to settle.

 

The Mandate doesn't give Jews the right to steal private land and use it just for themselves.

One the contrary, the Mandate requires that the rights of non-Jews be protected.

You can't go around claiming on one hand that the Mandate is the binding legal instrument, and then on the other hand that Ottoman/British/Jordanian law is the binding legal instrument. Such flip-flopping would be laughed out of court.

 

these were/are private individuals, who's OPINIONS were merely OPINIONS, and in no way legally binding.

however, the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice ARE legally binding!!!!!

and they all say that the West Bank and East Jerusalem is under Israeli military occupation and ALL of the settlements are illegal.

done....and done.

 

That's why I answered to this references with a references of mine, that say otherwise by regarding international laws.

Do you know that Ben Gurion said numerous of times that there is no such thing as "Palestinians", right?

And I used Articles from the the site of ICRC, to show you that the settlements are legitimate, but I guess it deosnt metter to you.

So are you saying that Prof. Stone is not an international law expert?
So are you saying that Prof. Rostow was not an international law expert?
So are you saying that Howard Grief, was an attorny and the adviser on Israel under international law to Yuval Ne'eman while Ne'eman was the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure in the Yitzhak Shamir Government, didnt know what he was talking about? I used qoutes of Howard Grief numerous of times, I can post them one more time for you if you like.

etc.

One man is not "most international law experts", you know that, right?

So are you saying that all of those that consider the West Bank as "occupied" is ok, but international law experts that rely on international law to say that the West Bank is not occupied, then those experts are not ok?

Who said anything about worried? In my point of view, the Arabs can do and join anything they pleased as long they dont want to hurt me.

You want to talk about history? ok. lets start:

The "Palestinians" didnt live in the Land of Israel 1,400 years ago. There was no such thing as "Palestinians", there is no archiological evidence for the existance of the "Palestinians" from 1,400, which of course you would expect alot of evidences from such people that live here 1,400, right? and yet there is no such evidences.

Now if we will look what happened in that area much earlier then 1,400 years ago, then we will see that the Arabs were living in the Arabian Peninsula. This period of times is called "Djahilia period". This period was of course in the Arabian Peninsula and there were there Arabic barberian tribes that burried their girls (if there were too many girls) and they would worsiped stones and trees. Now how can I now that they were barbarian? because of the word "Djahil" that the Quran shows it 9 times, the definition of "Djahil" is barbaric.

So you can see that they were in the Arabian Peninsula as barbarian tribes, which means that according to that only your claim that the "Palestinians" lived in the Land of Israel for 1,400 years is not true.
1,400 years ago is was the 7th century, the time that Khalif Abu Bakr and his army qoncured areas in the Middle East including the Land of Israel. Khalif Abu Bakr and his army came from Saudi Arabia, which located in the Arabian Peninsula. Before 1,400 years there were in the Land of Israel in the Jewish side a period that was called "The Savoraim Period" and "The Geonim Period" that came after the Savoraim.

Here is the list of period from the Jewish side regarding the Jewish existance in the Land of Israel:
The Big Knesset Period- 532- 200 BC.
The Zogot Period- 200-50 BC.
The Tanaim Period- 70-200 AD.
The Amoraim Period- 220-400 AD.
The Savoraim Period- 400-670 AD.
The Geonim Period is devided in two- 670-1109 AD in the Land of Israel.
............................................................670-1288 AD in Babylon.
The Chief Rabinate-- from the end of the Geonim Period until nowadays.

So as you can see, while the Arabs worsiped trees and killed their girls in the Arabian Peninsula there were Jews (not only) in the Land of Israel, thus your claim is only getting more contridacted.

Just to clear it up, the Ashkenazi Jews were mixed with the Sephardim.
The Jewish presence in the Land of Israel was existed throughout history.
The name "Palestine" by the way, was first used by Hadrian, after Bar Kochba Revolt that ended in 135 AD, that was to blurr the Jewish esixtence. Yes Herodotus used a familiar word to "Palestine" as well, but Herodotus used the name "Palaistine", which was because of the Philistines existence in the Land of Israel (in the area of Gaza), like Hadrian thought about the word "Palestine".
So if you are using the word "Palestine" regarding to the "Palestinians" then you are actually saying that the "Palestinians" are the descendents of the Philistines, which means that they belong to the area of the Agean Sea.

Source: http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bibl...arabia-kadesh-barnea-shur-herodotus-484bc.htm

A civilian population voluntary settling, is not when a country transfering it's citizens, thus a civilian population voluntary settling is acceptable, but when a country transfering it's citizens it is not acceptable according to Article 49, thus it is not relevent to the current reality of Jewish settling. Because the Jewish settling is not happening because Israel is transfering it's citizens.

Right, which it doesnt happen with Israel and the settlements. Israel is not populating the West Bank, the populating happens without Israel. Which means that it is because the settlers want to settle there, it is also explains the illegal settlements that were built. and which Israel is doing it best to evecuate such settlements.

Israel is building inferstractures that use Jewish population and Arab population. Moreover, according to Article 55 from the Hegue Convention, says it is ok to use state lands

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. And that's according to an article "The Status of Palestine/Land of Israel and Its Settlement Under Public International Law", which was written by Prof. Talia Einhorn, a Proffesor of law at Arial university which was appointed her at Concordia International University Estonia, and Senior Research Fellow at T.M.C. Asser Institute for Private and Public International Law, International Commercial Arbitration and European Law, The Hague:

Prof. Talia Einhorn is also regarding private lands:

Source: http://www.acpr.org.il/english-nativ/issue1/einhorn-1.htm

The British Mandate was indeed over, but the document of the Mandate is still valid esspecialy when in 1948, when the British Mandate ended, the Mandate responsibility wasnt on the Brits. The Brits gave back the responsibility of fullfiling the Mandate back to the UN, which created in 1945 Article 80 that keeps the Mandate valid.

That's the exact thing that my source says.

And because Jordan cannot show any such title to the West Bank, it means that the 4th GC cannot be applied.

And because the West Bank wasnt belong to any country. then it means that when Israel took over the West Bank, it wasnt occupation.
When an hostile army took over a territory that belongs to hostile state while armed conflict was existed, then it is occupation, but if an army taking over a territory that dont belong to no one, then it cant be called "occupation".

And when it is proved as illegal, Israel evecuates the outposts. As Israel already did with many illegal outposts.

Israel declared state lands on properties that were classified by Jordan as state lands, and also Israel classified state lands on properties that werer classified as such in the Ottoman law, therfore, what Betselem says it drops out from the reports all the state lands that were classified as such before Jordan occupation.

According to the UK Manual, which is part of the laws in the West Bank, is accepteble to temporary use private lands to military needs:

Source: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=...epted.&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 in the West Bank.

As Prof. Rostow explained:

Source: http://www.mandateforpalestine.org/02mm--mandate-is-valid.html

It's only talks and threats. Meanwhile, what is happening is that America will continue veto a security council resolutions.

And Israel withdrawed from territories it's took over in 1967, thus Israel fullfiled that call from the Security Council.

If the Mandate was fullfiled, then it means that the UN is recognizing the right of the Jews to settle in "Palestine", which means that they recognizes the right of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Israel didnt dismante 2 outposts but much more. Israel is dismanting illegal outposts even when you dont hear it in the news.
Personal experience- when I was in the army, my commanders told me that a force from my brigade will go evecuate outposts, and I needed to be one of them that would evecuate, but the day after, the army decided that the responsibale on the evecuation will be on the Border police which couple days after was evecuating illegal outposts near Hebron. It was in 2011. The evecuations wasnt published in the news.

While you are saying that, ,it needs to be remind that while the recent riots in Jerusalem occurd, Abbas called to use all ways in the riots, which means also violance acts:

Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/fatah-calls-for-day-of-rage-in-jerusalem/

And yet he was the one responsible on the disengagment.

That was his opinion, it doesnt mean that today politicians think the same as Shamir.

 

According to the UK Manual, which is part of the laws in the West Bank, is accepteble to temporary use private lands to military needs:

Source: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=...epted.&f=false

And Israel is protected the rights of non-Jews.

So are you saying that Prof. Rostow which was Dean of Yale Law School and served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President Lyndon Johnson. Also Prof. Rostow helped draft resolution 242.
Does that man, for example, talked nonsense? is full of (*)(*)(*)(*)?

Or maybe Prof. Eyal Benvenisti, an attorney and professor of human rights at Tel Aviv University's Faculty of Law. Since 2003 he has been part of the Global Law Faculty at New York University School of Law, is taking nonsense?

Or maybe Judge, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, a man specializing in International Law and founder of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the Law Faculty in Cambridge University. he also apeared infornt of the ICJ several times, is also taking nonsense?

Or maybe Prof. Stone, a distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the Hastings College of Law, and an author of 27 books on jurisprudence and international law, and is hailed by his official biography at the Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence as one of the premier legal theorists, was also taking nonsense?

ETC.

 

If the Palestine Mandate is the governing legal document over the area, than all settlements built on confiscated private land are ILLEGAL, as the Palestine Mandate demands the protection of non-Jewish rights in Palestine.

If the UN Charter and by extension the resolutions of the UN Security Counsil are the governing legal document over the area, than the settlements are illegal as the UNSC has many times declared them so.

If the ICJ is the governing legal document over the area, than the settlements are illegal as the ICJ has stated so.

game...set...match.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL!!! Israel is not bound by British law, and in any case international law supercedes British law when it comes to international matters. British law is no longer in effect in the West Bank, nor was it in effect when they controlled the Palestine Mandate as the Mandate laws superceded British law.

see above. Their mere opinions are outweighed by legally binding political documents and institutionary statements of the Palestine Mandate, the ICJ, and the UNSC.

 

They are showing the reality in the West Bank according to international law. Are you saying that international law is not binding?

Like Resolution 242, right? The thing is that Israel fullfiled that resolution by withdrawing Sinai and giving it back to Egypt, after all Resolution 242 isnt calling Israel to withdraw from all the territories.

And this is contradicting the Mandate, which it's validity has kept thanks to Article 80.

 

WRONG!!!!

they only expressed their opinions, which are outweighed by the official declarations of the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice.

you DO understand, that the official declarations of the UNSC and ICJ outweigh those of private individual opinions, right?

I hope so.

 

And Israel evecuates illegal settlements when it is proven as such.

Today the laws that need to be respected in the West Bank is the Ottoman, Jordanian, British and Israeli laws.
The respecting of international conventions such as 4th GC is been respected because of good will of Israel, and that's what Israel announced after 1967.

And this is contradicting the Mandate, which it's validity has kept thanks to Article 80.

They are showing the reality in the West Bank according to international law. Are you saying that international law is not binding?

 

You need to stop going back and forth, jumping around, and flip-flopping.

you can't cite the Palestine Mandate one second and then UNSC 242 the other second, as the binding political document.

and no, stealing private land and using it just for Jews, is a violation of the Palestine Mandate.

you are 100% aware of this.

 

So are you saying that when the experts using articles from international conventions, such as 4th GC, to rainforce the claim that the settlements are legal, so it is wrong?
Or in mor simple words- Does the 4th GC is wrong? if not, then you agreeing with the experts that its legal.