Up the Reds. wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 7:20 am
IMHO thhis subject is almost impossible to debate. Just as the BML topic is almost possible to debate too. The first is open to being called antisematic and the second a racist.
I agree that it is a very difficult subject to debate because everyone takes a polarised position on these debates. e.g.Our side is totally right and your side is totally wrong. With most of these subjects it is never that black and white.
I don’t think all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, much of it is very justified.
I do think however that many people because of their political leanings have a very anti American slant and that drifts into the Middle Eastern conflict and they tend to apply, often quite innocently, double standards there which can border on AS.
I think when you have Israel being the subject of human rights criticism in isolation from the rest of the world and you find that the UN committee making the resolutions is populated by countries such as China, Cuba and North Korea you can’t help but think maybe you could pull the plank out of your eye here.
It’s laughable but Iran, that feminist capital of the world, was elected to the UN Commission on the Status of Women in 2010 and again in 2014.
Up the Reds. wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 7:20 am
I would just ask 'a curved ball' question ..Why is it that Israel has broken International law over 'settlements'
Whatever your feelings on the morality of the settlements, I’m not so sure Israel has broken international law. Or it is certainly not as clear cut as some would have it.
UN resolutions, although they make statements about the legality of the settlements, are merely political statements. They are non-binding under international law. Most of the voting in the U.N. is for non-binding resolutions that hold no weight.
In order to find Israel’s settlements to be a violation of international law, first, Israel must be considered an occupier of foreign territory. Yet, Israel’s legal claim to the territory in question was recognised by the international community on several occasions.
First, the land on both sides of the river Jordan were recognized as part of the Jewish National Home by the 1920 San Remo Conference.
This was endorsed by the League of Nations (predecessor to the United Nations) in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate to Britain, and affirmed by article 80 of the United Nations charter in 1945.
When Israel’s leaders declared sovereignty in all territory relinquished by Great Britain on May 15, 1948 (including the territory that is called the West Bank) it was recognized as the State of Israel by the General Assembly and Security Council by May 1949.
Jordan invaded (along with four other Arab states) and conquered this specific territory in 1949, annexed it in 1950, and gave it a new name: West Bank. Only two countries in the entire world recognized Jordan’s annexation (Great Britain and Pakistan) and not a single Arab country recognized this annexation.
Furthermore, article 2 of the UN charter forbids the acquisition of territory through war. Thus, Jordan’s acquisition and annexation of the territory was illegal under international law.
In 1967 Jordan was pushed out of the territory (back to Jordan’s recognised boundaries on the east bank of the Jordan river) by Israel.
This re-acquisition of the territory by Israel was legal because article 51 of the U.N. charter permits a nation to defend itself from attack. It is understood that national self-defense often necessitates control of any territory from which the initial aggression was launched.
If the territory would have been recognized as within the borders of the State of Jordan by either Israel or the international community between 1949 and 1967, then it would have meant Israel’s return to the territory was an occupation, regardless of previous title. But Jordan’s annexation was not recognized by the international community, nor did the Jordan-Israel ceasefire agreement represent acquiescence to new borders by either side.
Given the fact that Israel had legal title to the territory that was recognized by the international community and Israel’s final control of the territory was a result of self-defense rather than aggression, while Jordan’s control of the territory was never recognized as legitimate by the international community, Israel merely won back territory that legitimately belonged to it in the first place.
This is a strong legal argument for why Israel has superior title to the territory, in a legal chain that was never legitimately broken, therefore Israel can’t be an occupier on territory that belongs to it in the first place.
In addition Jordan relinquished all claims to the territory in 1988 and recognized the territory as part of Israel in a peace treaty signed in 1994.
Thus, even if Israel’s capture of the territory in 1967 is considered an occupation, the fact that Jordan later relinquished all its claims and then recognized the territory as part of the State of Israel means any such occupation is long over.
Those who claim the settlements are illegal often point to Article 49 of the convention, which states that to be an illegal occupier the occupying power must do one of two things:
1. Forcibly transfer the population under occupation to outside the occupation zone, either inside the controlling country or to another country.
2. Transfer the population of the occupier from its own country to the occupied zone.
No one is claiming that Israel is absorbing the Arab-Palestinian population into Israel proper, nor is anyone claiming Israel is deporting entire populations from the territory to somewhere else. So the first provision does not apply.
As for the second provision, it requires a wild stretch of the imagination to describe the voluntary choice made by free acting persons to migrate to the area as “persons being deported or transferred by their government”.
Even if you took the view that the Israeli government’s allowance of its citizens to live and build within its borders is a violation of article 49. The settlements are still not illegal under international law because of the Oslo Accords signed by the Palestinian-Authority, under Yasser Arafat, and Israel.
This was an internationally recognised agreement to divide jurisdiction of the territory between Israel and the newly created Palestinian Authority. Under this agreement, Israelis have full jurisdiction to live and build on the designated 60% of the territory. Therefore, any building in this territory is completely legitimate under international law through the Oslo Agreement.
So whatever the politics or morality of the settlements, legally I think Israel is own pretty solid ground.
Up the Reds. wrote: ↑Tue 14 Jul 2020 7:20 am
and still has direct flights from all over the World yet the TRNC isn't allowed that luxury?.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted in 2006 “On one side, supporters of Israel feel that it is harshly judged by standards that are not applied to its enemies. And too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies.”
In August 2013, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon acknowledged that Israel has “suffered from bias— and sometimes even discrimination” within the organisation.
Israeli diplomat Abba Eban commented: “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”
The reason for this has been well established: the automatic majority of states that because of oil, Islam, or anti-Americanism will vote yes on almost any anti-Israel resolution.
The UN and a lot of international agencies work on influence and block votes so if Greece can garner more votes/influence than Turkey then they win. As Greece is in the EU that’s a fair block vote there.
It’s not down to what is right or fair it’s down to winning the votes.
Seriously an interesting reply with some really good points. I got 'mugged' on another social media platform a while back about this subject so will leave it at that !!