Trump Has Right, The Jewish Settlements Are Legal

[HouseKnight1]

RECOGNITION OF SETTLEMENTS IS BASED ON JUSTICE

 

For the past two years, I seek to explain to readers the simple truth that, by creating Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Israel did not violate any international or local laws (see my article “Jewish settlements are legal” on this blog).

 

How actually, are based the allegations of anti-Semites about supposed illegality of Jewish settlements, the demands to destroy these settlements, and the sanctions imposed by the European Union against the state of Israel and the Jewish population of the West Bank?

 

The only legal “justification” for this anti-Semitic policy is a reference to paragraph 159 of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949. This paragraph says that during the war between the two «Powers», the occupying «Power» has no right to resettle its civilian population in the territory that this «Power» occupied from another «Power».

 

In 1949, when liberal lawyers formulated the Geneva Convention, “Power” referred to an empire, a power that usually had colonies. By the way, the UN Charter, formulated two years earlier, considered colonies, protectorates, and mandated territories as legal. A third of the UN Charter, which plays the role of the main international law, is devoted exclusively to colonies and protectorates.

 

Subsequently, jurists agreed that the term “Power” should be understood as any state. Let us agree with this definition and try to apply the Geneva Convention to our case, that is, to the West Bank.

 

First, let’s see how this piece of the mandated Palestine / Land of Israel was separated from other parts of our small country, and which states occupied it.

 

Until May 15, 1948, it was part of the British Mandate Territory of Palestine. In 1947, according to the Partition Plan for Palestine, the UN General Assembly decided to allocate this part of our common with the Palestinians land to the proposed Arab state.

 

The name Palestine was not used at all for this supposed state, at the request of Palestinian leader Amin al Husseini, who considered himself an All-Arab leader and claimed power at least over all of Syria-Palestine.

 

In fact, in 1948, the territory of the West Bank was occupied by the armies of Jordan and (briefly) Iraq. Then there were the Arab states, and not Israel, that prevented the creation of a separate, independent state of Palestine.

 

In 1949, Israel and Jordan signed a ceasefire agreement, according to which the West Bank remained under the occupation of Jordan. King of Jordan Abdullah considered himself the king of all Arabs of Palestine and Trans-Jordan. He announced the incorporation of the West Bank into his united kingdom of Jordan.

 

Jews who lived in the West Bank and in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem were expelled by Jordan to Israel, while Arab citizens received Jordanian citizenship.

 

Palestinian leader Amin al Husseini, the initiator of Nakba, did not want to submit himself to King Abdullah. He created his own government in Gaza (which was occupied by Egypt), and even managed to kill his rival Abdullah in 1951, when the last visited the Al Aqsa Mosque. However, the government of Amin al Husseini failed to establish its authority over the territory of the never-created Arab State (Palestine) and self-dissolved.

 

The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan has not been recognized by any state in the world. In 1967, during the defensive war provoked by the Arabs with the instigation and direct support of the USSR, Israel occupied the West Bank. A ceasefire line was established along the Jordan River. The West Bank has remained under Israeli military and civilian control to this day.

 

The right of Israel to defensible and recognized borders was recognized by the UN Security Council in its resolution No. 242, adopted in November 1967. This resolution gave the green light to the creation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, with the goal of enhancing the security of Israel.

 

Here, according to the plan presented by Yiga’el Alon (Labor), dozens of Jewish settlements were created. The purpose of the plan was to provide the state of Israel with secure borders, and especially with the border along the Jordan River.

 

In 1992, Jordan adopted the law of «Disengagement», that is, withdrew its claim to the West Bank. In 1994, a peace treaty was signed between Israel and Jordan. This treaty transformed the ceasefire line of 1967 (along the Jordan River) into a border between the two states recognized by both parties that fully complies with international law.

 

Meanwhile, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed a peace treaty (Oslo, 1993). In accordance with that treaty was created the Palestinian Authority. Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza received Palestinian citizenship for the first time. From a legal point of view, the definition of Power, which is used in the Geneva Convention, can be extended to the Palestinian Authority.

 

From the foregoing follows that until 1993, when, with the consent of Israel, was created the legal «Power», called the Palestinian Authority, Israel did not occupy the territory of another «Power», or territory of another state.

 

Thus, the case of the West Bank does not fall under the definition of the Geneva Convention, which speaks of the occupation by one «Power» of the territory of another «Power». Accordingly, Israel had the legal right to settle its citizens in this territory, until the moment that we established the Palestinian Authority in 1993, or the second “Power” in this territory.

 

The Oslo Accords do not mention Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, at all. Consequently, by default, the Palestinian Power recognized these settlements as legal. The demand of the Palestinians and those who support them to evict Jews from their cities and villages on the West Bank is illegal.

 

After 1993, Israel did not create a single new settlement. Moreover, on our own initiative, our “Power” liquidated three settlements in the West Bank, and more than a dozen Jewish settlements in Gaza (“Jewish Disengagement”).

 

Further, according to the Oslo peace treaty, half of the West Bank, where all Jewish settlements are located (zone “C”), should remain under Israeli jurisdiction until the signing of a new agreement between the parties.

 

As Palestinians withdrew from the Oslo Accords and refuse to sign a new agreement even on the most favorable terms, Israel has a legal right to fulfill the requirements of the Oslo Accords unilaterally and annex Zone C, as proposed Ayelet Shaked.

 

Today, “Zone C,” where live both Israeli and Palestinian citizens, has an indefinite status, which should be ended as soon as possible. Moreover, the Palestinian «Power» abuses this uncertain status and relocates its citizens to this territory. Today, just the Palestinian Authority violates the Geneva Convention, while blaming Israel for this.

 

If all this is not enough, then Europe, and in the past the Obama administration, put pressure on Israel, prohibiting new construction in the existing Jewish settlements of the West Bank. The construction ban is actually a way to force some of the fast-growing Jewish population to get out of their homes due to lack of housing. This is racial discrimination in its purest form.

 

………………….

 

If Israel annexes zone “C”, then Palestinian citizens residing in this territory must be eligible to acquire Israeli citizenship, or dual citizenship. If a peace treaty will be signed and Jewish settlements end up in Palestine, then the state of Palestine will be required to grant Palestinian citizenship (or dual citizenship) to the Jews living there.

 

………………….

 

Trump’s decision to recognize the legitimacy of Jewish settlements, ending discrimination against Jews living in the West Bank is legally grounded, humane and fair, but more importantly, it restores the rule of law in international relations on a global scale.

 

The European Union’s policy on the Jewish population of the West Bank is, from legal point of view a violation of the UN Charter on two counts. Firstly, the economic sanctions imposed on Israel under the pretext of “illegal settlements”, by definition, are an act of war, or rather, this is the unprovoked aggression of Europe against the Jewish state.

 

Secondly, sanctions and discrimination against the Jewish population of zone “C” are carried out on ethnic / racial grounds. This discrimination violates a paragraph of the UN Charter prohibiting racial discrimination and anti-Semitism.

 

……………… ..

 

I don’t think Trump puts us in an exclusive, privileged position. In fact, this distinguished president of the United States defends law throughout the world, and makes no exception to the Jews, contrary to all anti-Semites. He is trying to enforce the very UN Charter, which the UN itself is grossly violating.

 

And finally, Trump is the first of the American presidents who really wants to achieve peace in the Middle East. In order to establish peace between Jews and Palestinians, it is necessary to restrain the aggression of the Palestinians and all anti-Semites against Israel, and this is what Trump does. This person has a consistent logic.

 

Trump is knocking out the accusations that became the pretext for anti-Semitic aggression. Only in this way can peace be established: on the basis of mutual justice, and not on the basis of the unilateral “painful concessions” of the Jews.

 

It was precisely these “painful concessions” that led to a new inflammation of the conflict and revived the hope of the Palestinians to arrange a blood bath for the Jews, to accomplish what the great leader of the Palestinian people, Amin al Husseini, had not been able to do at one time.

 

………………….

 

Strengthening Israel, Trump strengthens peace. Those Israelis who really want peace with our neighbors must support Trump against his opponents from the Democratic and his own party. As much as we can.

 

When our Israeli politicians (like Benny Ganz) want to transfer Israel to the other side of the barricade, they undermine our security and destroy the prospect of peace with our «cousins» who are so eager to kill us that they are ready to sacrifice their children in order to kill Jewish children. Cain is next to us.

http://aaronblog.co/2019/11/trump-has-right-the-jewish-settlements-are-legal/

Edited November 20, 2019 by HouseKnight1

[Amplituhedron]

How actually, are based the allegations of anti-Semites about supposed illegality of Jewish settlements…

 

 

Bold by me.

 

Here, right out of the gate, you out yourself as loony-tunes, regardless of the balance of your argument (which, as it turns out, is blather).

 

The allegation that anyone who disagrees with Israel about the illegal settlements, or, by extension, anything at all, is an anti-Semite, is a despicable slur. It means, by extension, that millions of Jews, both in Israel and abroad, are actually anti-Semites, since they disagree with the settlements and with many other policies of Israel. Do try to show a little logic, if not human decency, the latter of which is evidently beyond you.

 

 

I don’t think Trump puts us in an exclusive, privileged position. In fact, this distinguished president of the United States defends law throughout the world …

 

                  

 

 

Nuff said about that. But thanks for the laugh!

 

The Israeli settlements are clearly illegal under the Geneva Convention, and are correctly recognized as such by virtually every meaningful international body — your tortured, dishonest argle-bargle to the contrary notwithstanding.

[HouseKnight1]

 

Bold by me.

 

Here, right out of the gate, you out yourself as loony-tunes, regardless of the balance of your argument (which, as it turns out, is blather).

 

The allegation that anyone who disagrees with Israel about the illegal settlements, or, by extension, anything at all, is an anti-Semite, is a despicable slur. It means, by extension, that millions of Jews, both in Israel and abroad, are actually anti-Semites, since they disagree with the settlements and with many other policies of Israel. Do try to show a little logic, if not human decency, the latter of which is evidently beyond you.

 

 

 

                  

 

 

Nuff said about that. But thanks for the laugh!

 

The Israeli settlements are clearly illegal under the Geneva Convention, and are correctly recognized as such by virtually every meaningful international body — your tortured, dishonest argle-bargle to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Let read My article carefully, to spare empty (anti-Semitic) declarations.

Edited February 21, 2020 by HouseKnight1

[sanctus]

I know it is a lost cause discussing with you about the legality of them, and you do not talk at all about outposts...:

1) Criticising government of Israel is not anti-semite....told you that 100s of times already...

2) DO NOT LIE:

 

After 1993, Israel did not create a single new settlement.

Here are some numbers:
around 900 in 2017 and 2018 https://www.timesofisrael.com/west-bank-settlements-report-rapid-growth-in-2019/

 

 

And yeah, the outposts, they are just settlements built without government authorization, but now since 2017 you have the Regularization law....

And then the evictions....
 

[Vmedvil2]

 

RECOGNITION OF SETTLEMENTS IS BASED ON JUSTICE

 

For the past two years, I seek to explain to readers the simple truth that, by creating Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Israel did not violate any international or local laws (see my article “Jewish settlements are legal” on this blog).

 

How actually, are based the allegations of anti-Semites about supposed illegality of Jewish settlements, the demands to destroy these settlements, and the sanctions imposed by the European Union against the state of Israel and the Jewish population of the West Bank?

 

The only legal “justification” for this anti-Semitic policy is a reference to paragraph 159 of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949. This paragraph says that during the war between the two «Powers», the occupying «Power» has no right to resettle its civilian population in the territory that this «Power» occupied from another «Power».

 

In 1949, when liberal lawyers formulated the Geneva Convention, “Power” referred to an empire, a power that usually had colonies. By the way, the UN Charter, formulated two years earlier, considered colonies, protectorates, and mandated territories as legal. A third of the UN Charter, which plays the role of the main international law, is devoted exclusively to colonies and protectorates.

 

Subsequently, jurists agreed that the term “Power” should be understood as any state. Let us agree with this definition and try to apply the Geneva Convention to our case, that is, to the West Bank.

 

First, let’s see how this piece of the mandated Palestine / Land of Israel was separated from other parts of our small country, and which states occupied it.

 

Until May 15, 1948, it was part of the British Mandate Territory of Palestine. In 1947, according to the Partition Plan for Palestine, the UN General Assembly decided to allocate this part of our common with the Palestinians land to the proposed Arab state.

 

The name Palestine was not used at all for this supposed state, at the request of Palestinian leader Amin al Husseini, who considered himself an All-Arab leader and claimed power at least over all of Syria-Palestine.

 

In fact, in 1948, the territory of the West Bank was occupied by the armies of Jordan and (briefly) Iraq. Then there were the Arab states, and not Israel, that prevented the creation of a separate, independent state of Palestine.

 

In 1949, Israel and Jordan signed a ceasefire agreement, according to which the West Bank remained under the occupation of Jordan. King of Jordan Abdullah considered himself the king of all Arabs of Palestine and Trans-Jordan. He announced the incorporation of the West Bank into his united kingdom of Jordan.

 

Jews who lived in the West Bank and in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem were expelled by Jordan to Israel, while Arab citizens received Jordanian citizenship.

 

Palestinian leader Amin al Husseini, the initiator of Nakba, did not want to submit himself to King Abdullah. He created his own government in Gaza (which was occupied by Egypt), and even managed to kill his rival Abdullah in 1951, when the last visited the Al Aqsa Mosque. However, the government of Amin al Husseini failed to establish its authority over the territory of the never-created Arab State (Palestine) and self-dissolved.

 

The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan has not been recognized by any state in the world. In 1967, during the defensive war provoked by the Arabs with the instigation and direct support of the USSR, Israel occupied the West Bank. A ceasefire line was established along the Jordan River. The West Bank has remained under Israeli military and civilian control to this day.

 

The right of Israel to defensible and recognized borders was recognized by the UN Security Council in its resolution No. 242, adopted in November 1967. This resolution gave the green light to the creation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, with the goal of enhancing the security of Israel.

 

Here, according to the plan presented by Yiga’el Alon (Labor), dozens of Jewish settlements were created. The purpose of the plan was to provide the state of Israel with secure borders, and especially with the border along the Jordan River.

 

In 1992, Jordan adopted the law of «Disengagement», that is, withdrew its claim to the West Bank. In 1994, a peace treaty was signed between Israel and Jordan. This treaty transformed the ceasefire line of 1967 (along the Jordan River) into a border between the two states recognized by both parties that fully complies with international law.

 

Meanwhile, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed a peace treaty (Oslo, 1993). In accordance with that treaty was created the Palestinian Authority. Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza received Palestinian citizenship for the first time. From a legal point of view, the definition of Power, which is used in the Geneva Convention, can be extended to the Palestinian Authority.

 

From the foregoing follows that until 1993, when, with the consent of Israel, was created the legal «Power», called the Palestinian Authority, Israel did not occupy the territory of another «Power», or territory of another state.

 

Thus, the case of the West Bank does not fall under the definition of the Geneva Convention, which speaks of the occupation by one «Power» of the territory of another «Power». Accordingly, Israel had the legal right to settle its citizens in this territory, until the moment that we established the Palestinian Authority in 1993, or the second “Power” in this territory.

 

The Oslo Accords do not mention Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, at all. Consequently, by default, the Palestinian Power recognized these settlements as legal. The demand of the Palestinians and those who support them to evict Jews from their cities and villages on the West Bank is illegal.

 

After 1993, Israel did not create a single new settlement. Moreover, on our own initiative, our “Power” liquidated three settlements in the West Bank, and more than a dozen Jewish settlements in Gaza (“Jewish Disengagement”).

 

Further, according to the Oslo peace treaty, half of the West Bank, where all Jewish settlements are located (zone “C”), should remain under Israeli jurisdiction until the signing of a new agreement between the parties.

 

As Palestinians withdrew from the Oslo Accords and refuse to sign a new agreement even on the most favorable terms, Israel has a legal right to fulfill the requirements of the Oslo Accords unilaterally and annex Zone C, as proposed Ayelet Shaked.

 

Today, “Zone C,” where live both Israeli and Palestinian citizens, has an indefinite status, which should be ended as soon as possible. Moreover, the Palestinian «Power» abuses this uncertain status and relocates its citizens to this territory. Today, just the Palestinian Authority violates the Geneva Convention, while blaming Israel for this.

 

If all this is not enough, then Europe, and in the past the Obama administration, put pressure on Israel, prohibiting new construction in the existing Jewish settlements of the West Bank. The construction ban is actually a way to force some of the fast-growing Jewish population to get out of their homes due to lack of housing. This is racial discrimination in its purest form.

 

………………….

 

If Israel annexes zone “C”, then Palestinian citizens residing in this territory must be eligible to acquire Israeli citizenship, or dual citizenship. If a peace treaty will be signed and Jewish settlements end up in Palestine, then the state of Palestine will be required to grant Palestinian citizenship (or dual citizenship) to the Jews living there.

 

………………….

 

Trump’s decision to recognize the legitimacy of Jewish settlements, ending discrimination against Jews living in the West Bank is legally grounded, humane and fair, but more importantly, it restores the rule of law in international relations on a global scale.

 

The European Union’s policy on the Jewish population of the West Bank is, from legal point of view a violation of the UN Charter on two counts. Firstly, the economic sanctions imposed on Israel under the pretext of “illegal settlements”, by definition, are an act of war, or rather, this is the unprovoked aggression of Europe against the Jewish state.

 

Secondly, sanctions and discrimination against the Jewish population of zone “C” are carried out on ethnic / racial grounds. This discrimination violates a paragraph of the UN Charter prohibiting racial discrimination and anti-Semitism.

 

……………… ..

 

I don’t think Trump puts us in an exclusive, privileged position. In fact, this distinguished president of the United States defends law throughout the world, and makes no exception to the Jews, contrary to all anti-Semites. He is trying to enforce the very UN Charter, which the UN itself is grossly violating.

 

And finally, Trump is the first of the American presidents who really wants to achieve peace in the Middle East. In order to establish peace between Jews and Palestinians, it is necessary to restrain the aggression of the Palestinians and all anti-Semites against Israel, and this is what Trump does. This person has a consistent logic.

 

Trump is knocking out the accusations that became the pretext for anti-Semitic aggression. Only in this way can peace be established: on the basis of mutual justice, and not on the basis of the unilateral “painful concessions” of the Jews.

 

It was precisely these “painful concessions” that led to a new inflammation of the conflict and revived the hope of the Palestinians to arrange a blood bath for the Jews, to accomplish what the great leader of the Palestinian people, Amin al Husseini, had not been able to do at one time.

 

………………….

 

Strengthening Israel, Trump strengthens peace. Those Israelis who really want peace with our neighbors must support Trump against his opponents from the Democratic and his own party. As much as we can.

 

When our Israeli politicians (like Benny Ganz) want to transfer Israel to the other side of the barricade, they undermine our security and destroy the prospect of peace with our «cousins» who are so eager to kill us that they are ready to sacrifice their children in order to kill Jewish children. Cain is next to us.

http://aaronblog.co/2019/11/trump-has-right-the-jewish-settlements-are-legal/

 

 

You know what Houseknight if you are going to try to colonize other areas do what all other powerful nations do and just kill your enemies and seize their territory. You don't need permission to colonize the west bank or any other area just seize it and place troops to guard it, once you have the troops in the area just shoot anyone that declares that you have done anything wrong.  I imagine the proper application of force would solve this problem, if the Arabs have a problem with it shoot them too. That's what the Russians basically did in Crimea, it has worked flawlessly as despite the international outcry that it was a illegal action and etc., they still have that territory that they annexed, because of why, "They have troops in the area". Another thing is Israel has nuclear weapons just put a few in the west bank and no one will deny that, that territory is yours. I think that you guys are taking the wrong approach about this, if you cannot conquer it legally take it illegally with force and never let it go. All it takes is just looking at this all a different way, in the end if you have your colonies does it really matter how you got them?

Edited February 24, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Thoth101]

You know what Houseknight if you are going to try to colonize other areas do what all other powerful nations do and just kill your enemies and seize their territory. You don't need permission to colonize the west bank or any other area just seize it and place troops to guard it, once you have the troops in the area just shoot anyone that declares that you have done anything wrong.  I imagine the proper application of force would solve this problem, if the Arabs have a problem with it shoot them too. That's what the Russians basically did in Crimea, it has worked flawlessly as despite the international outcry that it was a illegal action and etc., they still have that territory that they annexed, because of why, "They have troops in the area". Another thing is Israel has nuclear weapons just put a few in the west bank and no one will deny that, that territory is yours. I think that you guys are taking the wrong approach about this, if you cannot conquer it legally take it illegally with force and never let it go. All it takes is just looking at this all a different way, in the end if you have your colonies does it really matter how you got them?

 

That is pretty much what was done with the Native Americans. My question is though when are humans going to grow up and stop killing each other when we are all humans? There is so much land out there and people are worried about a little crappy pieces of land. The human race needs to grow up or we are never going anywhere. Religion has caused so much war on this planet. It divides humans and pits them against each other. There are no gods chosen people, that is a scam and lie to make a religion think they are more superior then another religion.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Thoth101

[Vmedvil2]

That is pretty much what was done with the Native Americans. My question is though when are humans going to grow up and stop killing each other when we are all humans? There is so much land out there and people are worried about a little crappy pieces of land. The human race needs to grow up or we are never going anywhere. Religion has caused so much war on this planet. It divides humans and pits them against each other. There are no gods chosen people, that is a scam and lie to make a religion think they are more superior then another religion.

Man has killed man since the beginning of time starting with the bronze spear thrust into another man's chest, why should the future be any different, which has just brought new places to fight and new ways to die?

Edited February 24, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Thoth101]

Man has killed man since the beginning of time starting with the bronze spear thrust into another man's chest, why should the future be any different, which has just brought new places to fight and new ways to die?

 

Maybe it is a form of self population control since there really isn't anything that can keep our populations down but killing each other. But still you would think in all these years we would be able to coexist with other humans and become less like squabbling Neanderthals. So much for evolution in a peaceful direction.   That is probably a big reason why Earth humans are not wanted in space. If we can't get along with each other I can only imagine what we would do to other alien races.

[Vmedvil2]

Maybe it is a form of self population control since there really isn't anything that can keep our populations down but killing each other. But still you would think in all these years we would be able to coexist with other humans and become less like squabbling Neanderthals. So much for evolution in a peaceful direction.   That is probably a big reason why Earth humans are not wanted in space. If we can't get along with each other I can only imagine what we would do to other alien races.

We just aren't technologically advanced enough yet to survive in space is the problem, but that will change over the next 100 or 200 years. Once we colonize mars and understand how to colonize a planet in space from the mistakes and lessons learned on Mars, we will have a blueprint for how to colonize other planets in other solar systems much further from earth within 200 years we will have a colony on another star's planet barring nuclear war or something like that.

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Thoth101]

We just aren't technologically advanced enough yet to survive in space is the problem, but that will change over the next 100 or 200 years. Once we colonize mars and understand how to colonize a planet in space from the mistakes and lessons learned on Mars, we will have a blueprint for how to colonize other planets in other solar systems much further from earth within 200 years we will have a colony on another star's planet barring nuclear war or something like that.

 

 

What has it been like 60 years since we have been to the moon? I think there is a reason for that.I can't prove it but I heard there is a secret space program that has already colonized Mars. NASA seems to just be a cover for what is actually going on. Do some research on it someday and see what you find.

[HouseKnight1]

I know it is a lost cause discussing with you about the legality of them, and you do not talk at all about outposts...:

 

1) Criticising government of Israel is not anti-semite....told you that 100s of times already...

 

2) DO NOT LIE:

 

 

Here are some numbers:

around 900 in 2017 and 2018 https://www.timesofisrael.com/west-bank-settlements-report-rapid-growth-in-2019/

 

 

And yeah, the outposts, they are just settlements built without government authorization, but now since 2017 you have the Regularization law....

 

And then the evictions....

 

The population growth of Jews living in the West Bank is higher than median Jewish population growth in Israel, but considerably lower than Palestinian population growth. The Palestinians established tens of new settlements in the debatable Zone A, without Israeli consent. In addition, the Palestinians built at least one town with israeli consent, and noticeably expanded the existing town Kalkilia, with israeli consent. The outposts largely were established within the lands of existing Jewish settlements, but without government consent. At the bottom line, the aggressive settlement policies perform just the Palestinians, with the support of UN and most of states on the planet. All that means simply antisemitism.

Edited February 25, 2020 by HouseKnight1

[HouseKnight1]

You know what Houseknight if you are going to try to colonize other areas do what all other powerful nations do and just kill your enemies and seize their territory. You don't need permission to colonize the west bank or any other area just seize it and place troops to guard it, once you have the troops in the area just shoot anyone that declares that you have done anything wrong.  I imagine the proper application of force would solve this problem, if the Arabs have a problem with it shoot them too. That's what the Russians basically did in Crimea, it has worked flawlessly as despite the international outcry that it was a illegal action and etc., they still have that territory that they annexed, because of why, "They have troops in the area". Another thing is Israel has nuclear weapons just put a few in the west bank and no one will deny that, that territory is yours. I think that you guys are taking the wrong approach about this, if you cannot conquer it legally take it illegally with force and never let it go. All it takes is just looking at this all a different way, in the end if you have your colonies does it really matter how you got them?

Arabs, and Palestinians, are our neighbors. I hope, we will repel all anti-Semitic attacks, so they will remain our neighbors, forever. We must defend our security and our legal rights in this land, just to achieve peace. As we learned, retreat provokes anti-Semitick attack of both Palestinians and anti-Semites. The destruction of Jewish settlements of Gaza gave support to HAMAS and made anti-Semites more aggressive, all over the World. To achieve peace, we must stay firmly on equal rights for the Jews. The Palestinians seek not peace but destruction of Israel, with the help of anti-Semites. Therefore we must occupy Palestine, but simultaneously respect the rights of Palestinians, as much as possible. 

[Vmedvil2]

Arabs, and Palestinians, are our neighbors. I hope, we will repel all anti-Semitic attacks, so they will remain our neighbors, forever. We must defend our security and our legal rights in this land, just to achieve peace. As we learned, retreat provokes anti-Semitick attack of both Palestinians and anti-Semites. The destruction of Jewish settlements of Gaza gave support to HAMAS and made anti-Semites more aggressive, all over the World. To achieve peace, we must stay firmly on equal rights for the Jews. The Palestinians seek not peace but destruction of Israel, with the help of anti-Semites. Therefore we must occupy Palestine, but simultaneously respect the rights of Palestinians, as much as possible. 

Yes, but what I am saying is this maybe you should take the offensive to your Palestine neighbors their terrorists attacks not only effect Israel but the entire world, join the Americans in combating terrorist groups across the Middle East, Israel as one of the stronger nations of the Middle East should take a more active role in keeping peace in the region. All the Middle East could be yours if you just seize it, you just must be willing to fight and die for it, it will require much blood spilled to accomplish such a goal.

Edited February 25, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[sanctus]

At the bottom line, the aggressive settlement policies perform just the Palestinians, with the support of UN and most of states on the planet. All that means simply antisemitism.

It is here were you are wrong and which I reiterated so maaaany times. If first part of sentence is true (other topic, but let us assume now it is true), then conclusion is not that it is anti-semitism, the conclusion is rather anti-Israel. Two very different things: former we all know what Ican and has led to (Holocaust), latter is just against a country. If you equate country with being jewish then you get your conclusion: criticism of Israel=antisemitism; but if religion does not matter in critics then that is  no more true.

 

Now other part (bold added by me):

 

 

The population growth of Jews living in the West Bank is higher than median Jewish population growth in Israel, but considerably lower than Palestinian population growth. The Palestinians established tens of new settlements in the debatable Zone A, without Israeli consent. In addition, the Palestinians built at least one town with israeli consent, and noticeably expanded the existing town Kalkilia, with israeli consent. The outposts largely were established within the lands of existing Jewish settlements, but without government consent.

 

So Israel gets to decide for the whole area? Why? Consent to me means a yes/no ruling, the final word. How is this right?

And howcome is it bad when "The Palestinians established tens of new settlements in the debatable Zone A,without Israeli consent".

Whilst it is ok if "The outposts[...]within the lands of existing Jewish settlements, but without government consent.

 

So the settlements can act without consent and Regularization law kicks in and all is fine, but if Palestinians do the equivalent it is not. Please telll me why!!!

 

 

[HouseKnight1]

 

It is here were you are wrong and which I reiterated so maaaany times. If first part of sentence is true (other topic, but let us assume now it is true), then conclusion is not that it is anti-semitism, the conclusion is rather anti-Israel. Two very different things: former we all know what Ican and has led to (Holocaust), latter is just against a country. If you equate country with being jewish then you get your conclusion: criticism of Israel=antisemitism; but if religion does not matter in critics then that is  no more true.

 

Now other part (bold added by me):

 

 

So Israel gets to decide for the whole area? Why? Consent to me means a yes/no ruling, the final word. How is this right?

And howcome is it bad when "The Palestinians established tens of new settlements in the debatable Zone A,without Israeli consent".

Whilst it is ok if "The outposts[...]within the lands of existing Jewish settlements, but without government consent.

 

So the settlements can act without consent and Regularization law kicks in and all is fine, but if Palestinians do the equivalent it is not. Please telll me why!!!

 

 

 

1. Anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism. The non-recognition and persecution of the Jewish State has clearly anti-Semitic background, both in Muslim World and Europe.

2.Israeli governments harrassed illegal Jewish outposts but don't tuch illegal Palestinian settlements within Zone C. Let's recall, the Zone C remains under Israeli jurisdiction under Oslo agreements.

3.Well, it's My error, instead of "Zone C" I wrote "Zone A". Pls, excuse Me, I meant "Zone C'. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by HouseKnight1

[Vmedvil2]

1. Anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism. The non-recognition and persecution of the Jewish State has clearly anti-Semitic background, both in Muslim World and Europe.

2.Israeli governments harrassed illegal Jewish outposts but don't tuch illegal Palestinian settlements within Zone C. Let's recall, the Zone C remains under Israeli jurisdiction under Oslo agreements.

3.Well, it's My error, instead of "Zone C" I wrote "Zone A". Pls, excuse Me, I meant "Zone C'. 

And houseknight I don't think you understood me in the modern world people break accords and treaties all the time, they are just words on paper, what matters is the power of the states that signed them, if Palestine is weaker than Israel then it does not require a accord or treaty to remove them, despite the treaty if you find that you do not approve of the terms then you should execute or forcefully remove the Palestinians on your territory as a warning to other that would defy your authority as the Jewish state. That would send a message not to break the treaty sometimes forceful action is necessary for people to see the wisdom of agreements between to states. Like if China broke the B.W.C. I would see nothing wrong with all the nations that signed the treaty making biological weapons too as a message to China, sometimes knee jerk reactions get the point across that maybe you shouldn't break treaties and agreements as each time an agreement is broken it brings the other party closer to ignoring the agreement and future agreements, furthermore each time a agreement is broken it brings us lesser respect for standing by agreements and makes people more likely to ignore agreements if there is no consequences to breaking them. Like Russia was violating the Intermediate Nuclear Weapons treaty thus the United States started to make Intermediate nuclear weapons in response and pulled out of the agreement with Russia. It is just words on paper unless both sides respect the agreement and infraction of agreements happens without consequences.

Edited February 26, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[HouseKnight1]

And houseknight I don't think you understood me in the modern world people break accords and treaties all the time, they are just words on paper, what matters is the power of the states that signed them, if Palestine is weaker than Israel then it does not require a accord or treaty to remove them, despite the treaty if you find that you do not approve of the terms then you should execute or forcefully remove the Palestinians on your territory as a warning to other that would defy your authority as the Jewish state. That would send a message not to break the treaty sometimes forceful action is necessary for people to see the wisdom of agreements between to states. Like if China broke the B.W.C. I would see nothing wrong with all the nations that signed the treaty making biological weapons too as a message to China, sometimes knee jerk reactions get the point across that maybe you shouldn't break treaties and agreements as each time an agreement is broken it brings the other party closer to ignoring the agreement and future agreements, furthermore each time a agreement is broken it brings us lesser respect for standing by agreements and makes people more likely to ignore agreements if there is no consequences to breaking them. Like Russia was violating the Intermediate Nuclear Weapons treaty thus the United States started to make Intermediate nuclear weapons in response and pulled out of the agreement with Russia. It is just words on paper unless both sides respect the agreement and infraction of agreements happens without consequences.

Palestine is stronger, than Israel, because of steady support from almighty anti-Semites. Palestinians break rules, for example Oslo accords, for many years perform rocket firing and terror, and remain unpunished. Well, it's "realpolitik". Muhammad made "realpolitic, just 1400 ago. Justice is needed, as a means to convince people, that their leaders make correct politics. Without rule of law, the "realpolitic" turns crazy, that is war. Peace is based on mutually accepted rules. Our endless conflict with Palestinians doesn't stop, because of anti-Semites around the World Village don't recognize equal rights for Jews, break rules and law, so inciting Palestinian people to annihilate Israel. Therefore, Palestinians continue their war, rejecting all peace proposals. First, the rule of law must be returned worldwide, then peace will be established in the Middle East.

Edited February 28, 2020 by HouseKnight1