Rats Deserting a Sinking Ship

[Balanbam00]

Second, under an alternative legal theory, absent a final determination of borders, there is no basis to deem Jewish settlements illegal. In fact, at best, the “West Bank” is territory in dispute. In this regard, we explained:

Even if, for the sake of argument, one disregards the applicability of the well-established uti possidetis juris principle, then, at best, one might argue that the “West Bank” belongs to those who inhabited the territory of the Mandate for Palestine prior to its dissolution. Yet, that would merely establish that ownership of the territory is disputed since the prior inhabitants of Palestine—collectively called “Palestinians”—included both Jewish Palestinians (who call themselves “Israelis” today) and Arab Palestinians (who call themselves “Palestinians” today). Accordingly, both Jews and Arabs would have colour able claims to the territory, thereby establishing the dispute referred to above. This being the case, one cannot claim that Jewish settlements are unlawfully situated since there has been no valid determination as to which territory of the “West Bank” belongs to Israel and which belongs to a future Arab Palestinian State.

[Balanbam00]

Third, we explained that since the “West Bank” has never belonged to another State, the Israeli presence there does not and cannot constitute “Occupation” in the sense of the Fourth Geneva Convention. As we stated:


''The argument repeatedly raised against Jewish “settlements” is that they supposedly violate Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. . . . Article 49(6) reads: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies”. This claim as applied to Jewish settlements has several fatal flaws. The most fundamental of these is that Article 49(6) presupposes the existence of an occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party (a State Party to the Convention) since, except for Common Article 3, the Convention applies solely to High Contracting Parties, i.e., States. Yet, the territory in question (i.e., the so-called “West Bank”) belongs to the State of Israel pursuant to uti possidetis juris and, therefore, cannot be considered “occupied”.

[Balanbam00]

We also noted that no Palestinian “state” exists today nor has one ever existed. This is true despite the fact that, in November 2012, the U.N. General Assembly agreed to change the Palestinian Authority’s designation at the U.N. from an “Entity” enjoying Observer status to that of a “Non-member State” with Observer status.

Importantly, “under the UN Charter, the General Assembly has no lawful authority to create or recognise a ‘State’. The UN does not officially recognise states or declare statehood; such actions are the responsibility of individual governments.” Moreover, “the General Assembly has no lawful authority to determine the borders, the territorial extent, or the capital city of any State, much less those of an entity whose very existence as a ‘State’ has no basis in international law.” The General Assembly also “has no authority to set aside or supersede the terms of existing treaties, other international agreements and documents, or Security Council resolutions.”

[Balanbam00]

We also noted that no Palestinian “state” exists today nor has one ever existed. This is true despite the fact that, in November 2012, the U.N. General Assembly agreed to change the Palestinian Authority’s designation at the U.N. from an “Entity” enjoying Observer status to that of a “Non-member State” with Observer status.

Importantly, “under the UN Charter, the General Assembly has no lawful authority to create or recognise a ‘State’. The UN does not officially recognise states or declare statehood; such actions are the responsibility of individual governments.” Moreover, “the General Assembly has no lawful authority to determine the borders, the territorial extent, or the capital city of any State, much less those of an entity whose very existence as a ‘State’ has no basis in international law.” The General Assembly also “has no authority to set aside or supersede the terms of existing treaties, other international agreements and documents, or Security Council resolutions.”

The ICC is supposed to be a court, wholly objective and divorced from politics. Yet, that is not the case in fact. Threatening to investigate the legality of Jewish settlements in the “West Bank” is yet another example of the ICC’s political meddling. In our letter, we remind the ICC Prosecutor of her responsibilities as a lawyer, to avoid political matters and follow the law, and we strongly encourage her to do so in this matter.

We’ve won at the ICC before in defence of Israel’s interests, and we will continue to work through our office in Jerusalem, Israel, on Capitol Hill, and at the U.N. to protect and defend our ally.

By Skip Ash, Senior Councel, American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

[barrie_burn]

You all have your opinions which I have followed.However,I am not about to air my views.

This is not a site on which this thread should continue and I agree with BT.

NO MORE

[sinkov]

You all have your opinions which I have followed.However,I am not about to air my views.

This is not a site on which this thread should continue and I agree with BT.

NO MORE

That's fair enough Barrie, but in agreeing with BT you should appreciate that it's BT alone who has raised this issue every single time it has been discussed on this forum. I can guarantee you I'll never raise the issue of Israel and Palestine, so don't worry about me, but if BT brings it up again, I'll respond.

[Balanbam00]

That's not fair to me Barry! You know I consider this site to be the best site on Footymad. One of the best things about it we can discuss to our hearts content about all subjects under the sun. Brexit ,Labour ,Torry's Lake district, hiking, fishing, cricket my Goldfish, whatever! I do not know how many come to this site hundreds,maybe not to comment but they read it ? I don't know?
Now, lets just say you come from Colne,and I said ''Oh Colne ,its a shoite hole,phoockin drab etc, and the women........'' Would you just let it pass,well I would not !!
You say
''This is not a site on which this thread should continue and I agree with BT.
NO MORE''
Hey ,maybe next we can talk about China ,and its expansion policy's? China has grabbed the West Philippine sea!!! No no, that's not about footy !We can't continue about that.

''This is not a site on which this thread should continue and I agree with BT.''
It seems B T is loosing all his debates ,that's why he packs up and leaves .What ever subject you don't like ,just don't read about it anymore,it's simple really.