Israel to expedite settlement construction after UNESCO vote

[Ulysses G.]

The term 'illegal', is not one that I use or have made up, it is one used by international organizations and even by Obama himself.

Oh really? Why don't you produce evidence backing up this claim? - probably because it is not true. In fact, Obama vetoed a UN resolution making this assertion, sponsored by the usual suspects, as it is total nonsense and unsupported by the facts.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[midas]

What the Palestinians recent rude actions have accomplished is basically giving more power to the Israeli right wing. Stupid, stupid, move.

accompanied by even less respect by the rest of the world

[GentlemanJim]

All that needs to be done for negotiations to take place is to cease the illegal building of settlements.

You're completely wrong. Israel could withdraw from the west bank entirely tomorrow, and the Palestinians would not give up their right of return demand or their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. You act like it's one way, and it simply isn't.

What the Palestinians recent rude actions have accomplished is basically giving more power to the Israeli right wing. Stupid, stupid, move.

So requesting a democratic vote on a particular issue is 'rude'. If I knew you were not serious that would be one of the funniest things written on this board. Rude! Oh my giddy arse the Palestinians have been rude for not asking Israel's permission to request a democratic vote from the world.

[Jingthing]

What the Palestinians recent rude actions have accomplished is basically giving more power to the Israeli right wing. Stupid, stupid, move.

accompanied by even less respect by the rest of the world

If you are saying Israel is unpopular, you're stating the obvious. Still doesn't help towards peace and two states, either way.

[GentlemanJim]

The term 'illegal', is not one that I use or have made up, it is one used by international organizations and even by Obama himself.

Oh really? Why don't you produce evidence backing up this claim? - probably because it is not true. In fact, Obama vetoed a UN resolution making this assertion, sponsored by the usual suspects, as it is total nonsense and unsupported by the facts.

Lets start with the following shall we.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, adopted on March 22, 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".^[1] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as theSyrian Golan Heights.In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

The Resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions from Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Source.UN Res 446

Then lets go here

Obama ""America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

Next!

Edited November 2, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Ulysses G.]

You seem to be avoiding supplying any proof of your claim that Obama said that the settlements are illegal.

The Illegal-Settlements Myth

David M. Phillips

The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is...

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-illegal-settlements-myth/

Edited November 2, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[midas]

You seem to be avoiding supplying any proof of your claim that Obama said that the settlements are illegal.

it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't say this because let's face it then he would soon find his

campaign fund providers withdrawing their support some people call that blackmail

Edited November 2, 2011 by midas

[GentlemanJim]

You seem to be avoiding supplying any proof of your claim that Obama said that the settlements are illegal.

The Illegal-Settlements Myth

David M. Phillips

The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is...

http://www.commentar...ttlements-myth/

Obama ""America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

with a video of him saying it. How clear would you like me to make it.? Edited November 2, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Ulysses G.]

it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't say this because let's face it then he would soon find his

campaign fund providers withdrawing their support

Some people would call that another unfounded conspiracy theory.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

There is no ambiguity about shooting rockets into Israel. Illegal.

[Ulysses G.]

You seem to be avoiding supplying any proof of your claim that Obama said that the settlements are illegal.

The Illegal-Settlements Myth

David M. Phillips

The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is...

http://www.commentar...ttlements-myth/

How clear would you like me to make it

Clear enough that you admit that he did not say that they were "illegal" or anything close to it and that your claim is not true.

[GentlemanJim]

Some people would call that another unfounded conspiracy theory.

What on earth are you talking about? You asked for sources that international organizations deem the settlement building illegal, I have provided that source. I also provided a video of Obama saying that "America does not accept the legitimacy of the settlement building", ie it is illegal. How can that now be a conspiracy theory? Is it not really Obama on the video?

Jingthing

There is no ambiguity about shooting rockets into Israel. Illegal.

I agree completely, but that is not what is being discussed is it. There is neither any ambiguity about the settlement building being illegal either.

[GentlemanJim]

You seem to be avoiding supplying any proof of your claim that Obama said that the settlements are illegal.

The Illegal-Settlements Myth

David M. Phillips

The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is...

http://www.commentar...ttlements-myth/

How clear would you like me to make it

Clear enough that you admit that he did not say that they were "illegal" or anything close to it and that your claim is not true.

He said that "America did not accept the legitimacy of the settlement building". Do you know what that means? Are you trying to tell me that does not mean 'illegal' or as you put it 'close to it'? I despair I really do.

il·le·git·i·mate adj.1. Against the law; illegal.2. Born out of wedlock.3. Grammar Not in correct usage.

Edited November 2, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Ulysses G.]

Are you trying to tell me that does not mean 'illegal' or as you put it 'close to it'?

Yep and that is why he vetoed the UN resolution that tried to make the same fallacious claim. He does not approve of the building, but has never said that it is illegal.

[GentlemanJim]

Are you trying to tell me that does not mean 'illegal' or as you put it 'close to it'?

Yep and that is why he vetoed the UN resolution that tried to make the same fallacious claim. He does not approve of the building, but has never said that it is illegal.

So lets get this right.

The definition of the word illegitimate is "against the law, illegal", and Obama says "America does not accept the legitimacy of the settlement building". That means in any interpretation that the settlement building is illegal. I cannot believe you are seriously disputing that that is what Obama said. You asked me for references to prove the settlement building was illegal as far as International organizations were concerned and that Obama had said the settlement building was illegal. Both sources have been provided for you and are irrefutable. If you are unable to comprehend that then lets cease to communicate further on the matter. You were given the proof you asked for.

I am staggered that you are taking such a clearly blinkered view here. Where on the video does Obama say he does not approve? He says he does not accept the legitimacy, that means he does not accept the legality. There is absolutely no confusion here.

Edited November 2, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Steely Dan]

How abhorrent.

What are the same old tired arguments? The fact that Israel does not comp[ly with UN resolutions? Perhaps the same old tired argument is the lack of a cohesive responsible answer to justify such blatant disregard for international law. You can make little of the UN if you wish, i guess when it suits you. The US and coalition forces used the very same UN resolutions that have resulted in the deaths of thousand of young servicemen and women in Iraq. Clearly on that occasion the concept that UN resolutions must be upheld was adhered to, when it suited political purpose, but not so here eh.

Abhorrent that Israel decides to ease it's housing shortage by building in areas the Palestinians were never going to get anyway, should they indeed ever negotiate in good faith. To put it another way the unilateral action against the Oslo accords by the Palestinians also gave Israel some leeway to act in kind. P.S As far as the workings of the U.N go I suggest you look up block voting and nepotism in the Eurovision song contest as the same applies, except the boom bang a bang from the Palestinians never stops - Tell me about binding U.N security council resolutions and you've got my attention.

[Ulysses G.]

He said that "America did not accept the legitimacy of the settlement building".

If you are going to quote him, quote him accurately. He actually said that the United States "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" which does not indicate that the ones that are already built are not acceptable, but that he does not want it to continue. His ambassador said the same thing after vetoing a UN resolution trying to brand the settlements "illegal".

the American ambassador, Susan E. Rice, said the veto should not be misconstrued as American support for further settlement construction, which the United States opposes. The issue should be resolved through peace negotiations, she said, and not mandated by a binding resolution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/world/middleeast/19nations.html

Edited November 2, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Some people would call that another unfounded conspiracy theory.

What on earth are you talking about?

That was a reply to midas and had nothing to do with your posts.

[GentlemanJim]

He said that "America did not accept the legitimacy of the settlement building".

If you are going to quote him, quote him accurately. He actually said that the United States "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" which does not indicate that the ones that are already built are not acceptable, but that he does not want it to continue. His ambassador said the same thing after vetoing a UN resolution trying to brand the settlements "illegal".

the American ambassador, Susan E. Rice, said the veto should not be misconstrued as American support for further settlement construction, which the United States opposes. The issue should be resolved through peace negotiations, she said, and not mandated by a binding resolution.

http://www.nytimes.c.../19nations.html

Argument - FAIL!

Obama says "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements". Have you actually watched the video that you asked for in proof? so how about you quote him accurately and stop making it up.

Regardless of what he said, you know full well that he is questioning the legality of continued settlement building. Now if you are going to argue, at least get it straight.

[Wallaby]

Enough according to who? The majority of the of the world doesn't think Palestine needs to do any of the things you mention. The majority of the world sees the conditions for what they are, roadblocks to geniune negotiations that Israel will ensure not be forthcoming as it continually flouts international law whilst Palestine is expected to lay down and roll over.

Negotiation is a two way street. It sounds to me like you think Israel should be expected to roll over on their most existential need -- the need to even exist.

Imagine negotiations in your own life. Say you wanted a promotion from your boss. Instead of discussing the issue with your boss, you go to an international organization to recognize your demand for a promotion. It would make a lot of noise, but it wouldn't get the raise, it would get you punished. Palestinians asked for this and they knew full well it was a deep insult to the party most important to them to get what they want. I realize Israel isn't the Palestinians boss nor should they be, but you get the idea.

To be clear, I think the lack of peace in the region is the responsibility of BOTH parties and to place the blame fully on one side only is pure idiocy.

To use your analogy.

I have tried to discuss it with my boss but he keeps saying that if I want a promotion I've got to let him build a house in my front yard. I would consider that he isn't negotiating in good faith. I take my claim to the ombudsman and he tells my boss that he is not being responsible and to pull his head in but he won't listen to them. For me complaining to the ombudsman my boss builds a house on my front door and tells the ombudsman he can do what he wants because I've been a naughty boy for asking for a promotion.

All other employer organisations think my boss is a wanke_r and tells him to pull his head in and act in good faith but he decides to call in his big brother and he decides to threaten and bully all the others who thought I was hard done by. Regardless of the threats everyone stands by me.

Now that I have been accepted my boss and his big brother are isolated from the rest of the community. The community thinks that because my boss is non cooperative it is no use asking what he thinks and everyone else just accepts me as part of the team. Big brother is starting to go on the outer and is starting to think seriously about his ties with little brother as it is hurting him financially and he is losing credit.

All this just because I asked for a promotion and instead of my boss discussing it he punishes me.

And some on here think that is democracy at work.

[Wallaby]

There is no ambiguity about shooting rockets into Israel. Illegal.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that firing rockets is legal or that it is right.

What people are saying is that Israel is also wrong, which some on here refuse to acknowledge because they are blinded by their own bigotry.

[Wallaby]

Why does Israel feel the need to 'expedite' settlements? What are they afraid of?

It's like being caught robbing a store 'the cops are here, quick, get as much as you can'.

There actions alone indicate they know dam_n well it is illegal and immoral to be building those settlement and are trying to build as much as they can before the enevitable hammer comes down on them.

Politics 101, take everything you can then offer a little back then you can pretend you are negotiating in good faith. But I'm afraid the rest of the world is on to them and they don't like being caught out.

[Ulysses G.]

Regardless of what he said, you know full well that he is questioning the legality of continued settlement building. Now if you are going to argue, at least get it straight

Don't be ridiculous. He is questioning the "legitimacy" of continued settlement building and in law, “legitimacy” is distinguished from “legality”, to establish that a government action can be legal while not being legitimate

They are not synonyms in this context and that is why the Arabs and the left keep demanding that Obama call the settlements "illegal". In other words, as I said originally, he does not approve of the building, but has never said that it is illegal because it is not.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Why does Israel feel the need to 'expedite' settlements?

Because the Palestinian Arabs have violated a number of agreements by trying to avoid negotiations and the Israelis want to make the point that they are not powerless.

[Wallaby]

Why does Israel feel the need to 'expedite' settlements?

Because the Palestinian Arabs have violated a number of agreements by trying to avoid negotiations and the Israelis want to make the point that they are not powerless.

That doesn't answer the question. Why are they being 'expedited'. If they still just built at the normal rate then that would have the same effect of showing they aren't powerless.

Is it a power thing, a dick measuring thing. You ask for a vote and we'll take all the land, quickly.

To any normal person that means they know they are in the wrong and want to do a quick land grab before they have to stop.

And yes, the settlements are illegal. Obama is a politician afraid of the Israeli lobby so I doubt very much he will just come out and say it outright. That's what the UN is for, so politicians that are afraid to say it can rely on the UN to say it for them. Everyone knows the settlements are illegal and only a bigot would even attempt to justify them.

Your views are an ever decreasing minority. I know it must hurt to think you are wrong but I'm sure you'll get over it.

[Ulysses G.]

You ask for a vote and we'll take all the land, quickly.

Nope. You violate the agreements that you signed and we do not hold back on building on disputed land. It is pretty simple really.

[Ulysses G.]

Everyone knows the settlements are illegal and only a bigot would even attempt to justify them.

Incorrect as usual.

Though routinely referred to nowadays as “Palestinian” land, at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term. For several hundred years leading up to World War I, all of Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan, and the putative state of Palestine were merely provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-illegal-settlements-myth/

[Wallaby]

You ask for a vote and we'll take all the land, quickly.

Nope. You violate the agreements that you signed and we do not hold back on building on disputed land. It is pretty simple really.

Build them out of spite. The world is on to Israel's childishness.

[Ulysses G.]

The Israelis did not violate any agreements. Despite biased anti-Israeli rants, the onus is on those that did.

[Wallaby]

Everyone knows the settlements are illegal and only a bigot would even attempt to justify them.

Incorrect as usual.

Though routinely referred to nowadays as "Palestinian" land, at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term. For several hundred years leading up to World War I, all of Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan, and the putative state of Palestine were merely provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

http://www.commentar...ttlements-myth/

They are illegal, the UN has called them illegal. The majority of the world calls them illegal. I posted the facts on another thread.

Israel is the only country in the world that considers the settlements legal.

Also from this link http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-confirms-settlers-ramping-up-west-bank-construction-1.5580"The settlers are very much in tune with the ticking political clock," the senior defense source said. "You can sense it on the ground, with the infrastructure work that is being done, but also in more minor things. They are acting without any legal authorization and are ignoring the state.

Then there is the UK from this http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/11/02/Settlements-illegal-London-tells-Israel/UPI-52041320244269/

London reminded the Israeli government that settlement activity in the Palestinian territories violates international law and threatenes the peace process.

You are welcome to your view, as wrong as it is, but we would prefer to debate with people who don't bury their head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the truth.

We are all well aware of your 'views' and it is obvious some are just beyond repair and incapable of rationale.

Best to just leave you in your own sweet world.