http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/16/eu-israel-settlement-exclusion-clause

And about time too! These settlements are illegal under international law. However much we sympathise with the Israelis, they should not be allowed to flout international law with impunity.

This issue is far from black and white. The land was occupied by Arab countries before Israel took it from them, after being attacked. The Palestinians and the international community had no problem with it, at all, until Israel took control. I have to admit that the settlements don't keep me up at night.

I read recently, however I didn't keep the link, that you are not allowed to be a dual national to hold certain senior posts within the US Government, ( The President being a prime example ) however you are also not allowed to be a dual national to sit on the NSC and other important security positions. the only exception being if you hold dual Israeli/US citizenship.

Can anyone confirm that?

Reading this article, it appears to be yet another stupidity by the Brussels bureaucrats. It excludes trade, which is Israel's main interest, but will prohibit students from the settlements from gaining (paid) places at many of Europe's prime educational establishments, whether sexcondary or tertiary.

Thus many doctors, scientists and similar will go to the US for their education and will probably continue their life there, instead of Europe. We will lose the opportunity to gain some of the world's best brainpower in our research establishments, to satisfy an aberrant liberal idea that the Israelis mistreat the poor Palestinians. It is the Palestinians own masters, Fatah and Hamas, that mistreat them, keep them in poverty, do not develop their state.

There was never one iota of protest from anyone when Egypt occupied the Gaza strip and Jordan the West bank post 1948, the territory only miraculously became disputed after the Arabs failed in a second attempt at annihilating Israel post 1967. Any sanctions are of course a politically motivated nonsense from an E.U so weak and corrupt that it still fails to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization in spite of clear evidence from Bulgaria that it was Hezbollah who were behind the bombing of a bus containing Israeli holiday makers there. I suspect most Israelis will be heading to the U.S for scientific and education purposes anyway due to the marked rise in Antisemitism in Europe, which appears to be completely ignored by European governments,

Of course providing you have oil and gas which Europe so badly needs then any transgression of law or human rights can be safely ignored. I trust this principle will apply when Israel's vast oil and gas reserves come on tap, coinciding with Europe trying to belatedly reverse it's suicidal multicultural Eurabia policy. Should it come to this I hope Israel tells the E.U to go swivel and sells oil to the Chinese instead.

Reading this article, it appears to be yet another stupidity by the Brussels bureaucrats. It excludes trade, which is Israel's main interest, but will prohibit students from the settlements from gaining (paid) places at many of Europe's prime educational establishments, whether sexcondary or tertiary.

Thus many doctors, scientists and similar will go to the US for their education and will probably continue their life there, instead of Europe. We will lose the opportunity to gain some of the world's best brainpower in our research establishments, to satisfy an aberrant liberal idea that the Israelis mistreat the poor Palestinians. It is the Palestinians own masters, Fatah and Hamas, that mistreat them, keep them in poverty, do not develop their state.

It would almost appear the E.U prioritizes immigration to those who are unemployable or at best qualified to do only the most menial of jobs. This genius policy results not only in increased crime but also welfare payments that hit hardest those who are not rich but still shoulder the tax burden. P.S Netanyahu responded that perhaps the E.U should be more concerned with the Syrian situation and Iranian attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.

For all I said in OP, Bravo Netanyahu!

finally an interesting thread again were the yada-yada yakety-yak can go on for weeks or even months.

Actually Yaks are quite interesting, I recommend visiting Tibet where you can see them for real, indeed Yak souvenirs are more evident there than chairman Mao themed ones. Talking of Tibet, that reminds me of E.U and U.N hypocrisy.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3866/occupied-territories-cyprus-kashmir-tibet

So are we saying that the settlements are legal?

Are the settlements legal under US, European, Israeli or other law. A straight yes or no will suffice, I don't know the answer so I await your answers and relevant info with bated breath.

I would say no, but much of the media would like you to think otherwise. It is controversial because " at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term."

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

Opposing Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem may be politically expedient, a convenient charge to indict Israel, but assaulting their legality is baseless. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/are_israeli_settlements_in_the.html

No, UG? Don't you mean Yes? If they're not legal, why are you so keen to defend them?

Of course the Jewish lobby will defend them, just as the Irish lobby will say the six counties should be part of Eire. But geopolitics change, and boundaries change with them. Rightly or wrongly, the boundary between Israel and "Palestine" was fixed, and after the 1967 war (forgive me if it's the wrong war!; the principle is the same) Israel built settlements on land which they had conquered. That was illegal. Full stop.

Thank you UG for the links, I am running off a kindle at present in an airport hotel room, so I cannot give them justice, but I will. The first link has interesting view points, which I will take up further and the second I have only just started, but as I wanted an international law perspective, I was disappointed with the initial paragraphs which state as Israel will not get a fair hearing from the ICJ I they refuse to take part within it. I will read the whole article in due time. Agent other view points on the international law view point? From anyone.

No, UG? Don't you mean Yes? If they're not legal, why are you so keen to defend them?

Of course the Jewish lobby will defend them, just as the Irish lobby will say the six counties should be part of Eire. But geopolitics change, and boundaries change with them. Rightly or wrongly, the boundary between Israel and "Palestine" was fixed, and after the 1967 war (forgive me if it's the wrong war!; the principle is the same) Israel built settlements on land which they had conquered. That was illegal. Full stop.

Yes they are legal IMO.

The boundary has never been fixed because the Palestinian Arabs turned down the UN deal in 1947. There is no deal unless both sides agree. The Palestinians had they never controlled that territory in the first place. It was the Ottoman Empire for centuries. After that the British ran it and then Jordan occupied it. Not only that, but the Palestinian Arabs also turned down several deals with Britain before that that would have given Israel only a tiny bit of territory. The first one they turned down would have only given the Jews only partial autonomy - they would have been governed by the Arabs. The Jews agreed to every deal, but the Arabs were only interested in wiping them out and said no over and over again. Just like today.

I understand your position, but I am looking for international opinion as well as individual opinion. I know you are well versed in this area, so give me valid alternative views of the situation if you can. of you Because I could on the Ireland situation if required, give a balanced view point appraising both sides. On the middle east I want a balanced view, so not only can I research but also understand better. Edited because of my inability to use the touch screen app.

The problem is that there is no consensus on it - as with many legal issues. You can make a case for both sides if you want to. There are many who will say that the settlements are not legal under international law and many who will say that they are.

As usual, the UN sides with the Palestinians and Israel begs to differ. The UN says that Israel has violated the Fourth Geneva convention and Israel counters that Jordan occupied the land illegally and after they attacked Israel, Israel took it in self defense and has more title to the land than previous holders.

No, UG? Don't you mean Yes? If they're not legal, why are you so keen to defend them?

Of course the Jewish lobby will defend them, just as the Irish lobby will say the six counties should be part of Eire. But geopolitics change, and boundaries change with them. Rightly or wrongly, the boundary between Israel and "Palestine" was fixed, and after the 1967 war (forgive me if it's the wrong war!; the principle is the same) Israel built settlements on land which they had conquered. That was illegal. Full stop.

Yes they are legal IMO.

The boundary has never been fixed because the Palestinian Arabs turned down the UN deal in 1947. There is no deal unless both sides agree. The Palestinians had they never controlled that territory in the first place. It was the Ottoman Empire for centuries. After that the British ran it and then Jordan occupied it. Not only that, but the Palestinian Arabs also turned down several deals with Britain before that that would have given Israel only a tiny bit of territory. The first one they turned down would have only given the Jews only partial autonomy - they would have been governed by the Arabs. The Jews agreed to every deal, but the Arabs were only interested in wiping them out and said no over and over again. Just like today.

You overlook the small but important detail that the Partition Plan was approved on 29 November 1947, by the UN General Assembly voting 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition Plan. The Palestinian Arabs were in no position to turn down the UN plan as they had not yet been recognized as a UN member.

Thus the UN Resolution 181(II) stands as the legal boundaries of Israel/Palestine as approved by a two thirds majority.

The West Bank was seized by TransJordan's British-led Arab Legion as part of a covert agreement involving Britain and Israel. Golda Meir and others met Abdullah in May 1947 to discuss Transjordan's seizure of the West Bank. This came to pass in 1948 but was not recognized by anyone (and was firmly denounced by the Arab League), but the Uk and their colonial puppet, Iraq. Basically the Palestinians got shafted by everyone having failed to make a serious impression in the fighting of 1947-48.

The simple reason for Arab rejection of the Partition Plan was that it gave a majority of Palestine to a minority of the population (many of whom were recent migrant from Europe). This was indeed exacerbated by anti-semitism and short-sightedness, but the Partition was approved by the UN GA and thus the borders were legally fixed.

Attacking Israel the day after it was declared a country was a pretty clear rejection of the UN plan. However, the Palestinians did reject the 1947 UN partition proposal. The Jewish community accepted both the 1937 and 1947 partition plans, but, the Palestinian Arab leadership, dominated by the Husseini family, who were backed by the Arab League, rejected both plans categorically. The 1937 plan designated only 20 percent of "Palestine" to the proposed Jewish state. In fact, the Palestinian leadership even rejected the 1939 British White Paper, which had promised them an independent state within ten years while limiting Jewish immigration and turning the Jews into a minority in an Arab Palestinian state.

The Arabs preferred war as they thought that they would win easily and so did everyone else. Unfortunately, even after losing over and over again, they still reject every peace proposal and do not want compromise.

Attacking Israel the day after it was declared a country was a pretty clear rejection of the UN plan. However, the Palestinians did reject the 1947 UN partition proposal. The Jewish community accepted both the 1937 and 1947 partition plans, but, the Palestinian Arab leadership, dominated by the Husseini family, who were backed by the Arab League, rejected both plans categorically. The 1937 plan designated only 20 percent of "Palestine" to the proposed Jewish state. In fact, the Palestinian leadership even rejected the 1939 British White Paper, which had promised them an independent state within ten years while limiting Jewish immigration and turning the Jews into a minority in an Arab Palestinian state.

The Arabs preferred war as they thought that they would win easily and so did everyone else. Unfortunately, even after losing over and over again, they still reject every peace proposal and do not want compromise.

No one is denying that the Palestinians and Arab nations have been stunningly short-sighted and have acted in a truly unhelpful fashion at crucial moments.

However the bottom line is that Palestine's & Israel's boundaries were set by the UN in Nov 1947 and remain the legal boundaries for these 2 entities.

Post the 1947-48 civil war and 1948 war Israel occupied some 78% of Mandate Palestine compared to the 56% stipulated in the Partition Agreement. Egypt occupied but never annexed the Gaza Strip, lost it in 1967 to Israeli occupation until they handed it over to the Palestinians in 2005.

Jordan occupied and subsequently annexed the West Bank (as agreed with the UK and Israel) but also East Jerusalem. Jerusalem should have been an "open city" under UN control but this was negated by the murder of the UN representative the Swede Count Bernadotte, an attack undertaken by Jewish terrorists of the Stern Gang operating under orders from Yitzhak Shamir. No one was ever charged for these murders. ( a French officer was also killed in the ambush).

Both Jerusalem and the West Bank were occupied by Israeli forces in 1967. Jordan renounced all interest in the West Bank in 1988 in favour of the Palestinians.

Only Israel remains in occupation of land taken by force beyond the boundaries laid down by the Partition Treaty as ratified by the UN in Nov 1947. The legal status of the West Bank is one of military occupation as accepted in rulings by the ICJ and Israeli Supreme Court in 2004.

Land for peace remains the only viable solution to a true Gordian type nightmare, and Biblical claims to "Judea and Samaria" are as relevant as the UK reclaiming Aquitaine from France, Russia reclaiming Alaska, Mexico regaining CA/TX/Nm/AZ etc etc

Land for peace remains the only viable solution to a true Gordian type nightmare, and Biblical claims to "Judea and Samaria" are as relevant as the UK reclaiming Aquitaine from France, Russia reclaiming Alaska, Mexico regaining CA/TX/Nm/AZ etc etc

There is one big problem with your comparison. Have you ever heard the expression that posession is 99% of the law? Israel controls that land and can defend it - unlike the other places that you have mentioned.

The 1947 UN plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community, but rejected by Arab governments and the Arab community as a whole. Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications — that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181's validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly's recommendation and the Arabs refused. Israel has never declared official borders.

UN SC Res 242 - which was passed in 1967 - states that all sides must peacefully negotiate final status borders regarding the West Bank and Gaza. The borders are not even close to being set in stone.

Have you ever heard the expression that posession is 99% of the law?

. i wonder how often thieves use this interesting theory as a defense argument in a court of law.

It helps when when they "steal" it from someone, who stole it from someone, who stole it from someone else and the original owner has long since passed.

The problem is that there is no consensus on it - as with many legal issues. You can make a case for both sides if you want to. There are many who will say that the settlements are not legal under international law and many who will say that they are.

As usual, the UN sides with the Palestinians and Israel begs to differ. The UN says that Israel has violated the Fourth Geneva convention and Israel counters that Jordan occupied the land illegally and after they attacked Israel, Israel took it in self defense and has more title to the land than previous holders.

Imho the legal position is a red herring. As you rightly state there is no consensus on this, but this is not what is driving the issue. Moral arguments quickly run aground too when one considers the same situation exists in Cyprus, Tibet and sundry other places. In terms of human suffering Syria has in two years resulted in far more deaths than all the Arab-Israeli conflicts put together, Syria being only one in a long line of similar bloody middle eastern conflicts.

It should be clear that politics is the driving force here, in the case of the E.U it is no doubt worried about it's oil supplies and also problematic immigrant populations who are very anti Israel. So we have the E.U going down the same road as the BDS movement, who have actually harmed Palestinians with their actions and are if honestly appraised nothing to do with wanting a two state solution.

Have you ever heard the expression that posession is 99% of the law?

. i wonder how often thieves use this interesting theory as a defense argument in a court of law.

The argument that possession is nine points of the law (to correct you a tad, UG) is rubbish, at least in this case.

As far as I can see, the only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis and overseas Jews.

Have you ever heard the expression that posession is 99% of the law?

. i wonder how often thieves use this interesting theory as a defense argument in a court of law.

The argument that possession is nine points of the law (to correct you a tad, UG) is rubbish, at least in this case.

As far as I can see, the only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis and overseas Jews.

You are totally wrong about that. Check out typical opinions of right wing American Christian fundamentalists.

Have you ever heard the expression that posession is 99% of the law?

. i wonder how often thieves use this interesting theory as a defense argument in a court of law.

The argument that possession is nine points of the law (to correct you a tad, UG) is rubbish, at least in this case.

As far as I can see, the only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis and overseas Jews.

There are a few different versions of that saying that mean pretty much the same thing. I am using the American one and there is nothing "rubbish" about it. That is pretty much how the world works or the USA would be giving California back to Mexico as mentioned before.

As far as who believes that the settlements are within the law, they are pretty much the same people that believe that Israel has a right to exist in the first place. No surprise there.

If there is ever to be any kind of real peace deal with a two state solution then the settlements will be a big factor in the negotiation process. That doesn't mean Israel will give up ALL the settlements, ever, because they won't, especially the ones that are now Jerusalem suburbs, but in general they will be on the table.

Of course and most of them were offered to the Palestinans in a very generous peace deal several years back, but, as usual, they refused.

Have you ever heard the expression that posession is 99% of the law?

. i wonder how often thieves use this interesting theory as a defense argument in a court of law.

The argument that possession is nine points of the law (to correct you a tad, UG) is rubbish, at least in this case.

As far as I can see, the only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis and overseas Jews.

You are totally wrong about that. Check out typical opinions of right wing American Christian fundamentalists.

Quite right, but the main point is that the support by either group does not change the fact that the West Bank continues to be under military occupation and until there is some movement towards a 2 state solution along the lines of the 1947 partition ( but obviously acknowledging modern realities), there remains a festering sore and blockage hindering the possibility of normality for both Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom have an inalienable right to their own nation within recognised boundaries.

Stating that viewing the West Bank settlements as Illegal and an obstacle to long term peace and security for the region implies an inability to recognise the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation is trite nonsense. "Defensible borders" is a nonsense in today's asymmetric warfare and boundaries become meaningless squiggles on maps once tensions ate removed. That's one positive at least that the EU has brought the once war-torn western edge of Eurasia.