U.S. Veto of UNSC Resolution Gives Israel a 'Green Light' to Continue to Expand Illegal Settlements in OPT

Download PDF

Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) issued a press release late Friday (2/18/2011) after the United States, a permanent member of the UN Security Council vetoed a UNSC resolution reaffirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) are illegal and demanding that Israel cease all settlement activities in the OPT, including East Jerusalem.

Amnesty believes the U.S. veto gives Israel a ‘green light’ to continue building settlements in the OPT. Israel welcomed the veto while Palestinians were disappointed, angry and frustrated saying the veto has set back the peace process.

The other 14 members of the UN Security Council voted in favor of the resolution, which was proposed by Lebanon and co-sponsored by some 120 countries.

“The US cannot credibly insist that it opposes Israel’s continuing settlement construction while vetoing a resolution that demands Israel fulfil its legal obligations, as well as its previous commitments to the Quartet and the US government,”

said T. Kumar, Amnesty International U.S.A. International Advocacy director.

“The Israeli government, which seeks to expand settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, will interpret this veto as U.S. approval to do so, and conclude that it can escape international censure.”

“We are also concerned about the U.S. government attempts to pressure the Palestinian Authority not to bring this resolution to a vote. If the U.S. is serious about human rights and change in the Middle East, it should back the international consensus against Israeli settlement activity and the resulting human rights violations.”

Israel’s policy of settling its civilians on occupied land violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and is considered a war crime, according to the statute of the International Criminal Court. Amnesty’s 2007 report ‘Israel and the Occupied Territories: Enduring Occupation – Palestinians Enduring Siege in the West Bank’ documents how these illegal settlements and their subsequent necessary infrastructure inherently result in discriminatory policies and in continuing violations of the rights to adequate housing, water, and livelihoods for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

AIUSA welcomes a lively and courteous discussion that follow our Community Guidelines. Comments are not pre-screened before they post but AIUSA reserves the right to remove any comments violating our guidelines.

30 thoughts on “U.S. Veto of UNSC Resolution Gives Israel a 'Green Light' to Continue to Expand Illegal Settlements in OPT

  1. Edith:

    Over the last few decades Amnesty International has focused at a minimum, 10 TIMES as much attention Palestine as on all the human rights violations against the other the 200 million Arabs combined.

    Even though it is now clear as day on the TV news for all to see and hear that the 98% of Arabs who did not live in Palestine suffered all these years far worse at the hands of own Arab dictators than the Palestinians ever suffered from Israel.

    Amnesty willfully ignored these mass crimes against humanity of 20 different Arab dictatorships, the millions upon million of innocents stripped of any human rights, imprisoned, tortured and executed by these horrific regimes now being overthrown.

    It is like they never existed for you.

    And why ?

    I'll tell you.

    In order to focus almost exclusively on Israel and Palestine only, to pursue your own radical anti-Israeli agenda to the utter exclusion of all other human rights violations in the middles east.

    That is why and do not try to deny it.

    Aren't you ashamed of yourself ?

    You would if you had any conscience at all.

    By your silence the blood of so many innocent Arabs that you never spoke out for is on Amnesty's hands and on yours.

  2. Hello Judo,

    Anyone who follows Amnesty International's work around the world, especially these past several weeks, will know that you have no idea what you're talking about, but for those who may be visiting this site for the first time, reading your post for the first time and not realizing your m.o. (modus operandi) or are not familiar with Amnesty and it's work I feel I must respond.

    Amnesty International (AI) does not take a position on political issues or take sides in any conflict; AI is a human rights organization that advocates for human rights and campaigns on behalf of individuals and themes to advance respect for basic human rights for everyone. It holds all parties to the same applicable standards and bases its work on international law and standards.

    AI reports on all the countries in the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) region and those who are interested can visit the main, international Amnesty website, http://www.amnesty.org, or the website for the U.S. section of AI at http://www.amnestyusa.org to see a sampling of work being done on human rights violations – especially the MENA region at this time.

    Judo's statistic on our work on other MENA countries vs. our work on Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Palestinian Authority is simply fabricated. Also, AI does not measure 'who is worse than who' or commits 'the worst' human rights violations. AI's position is that ALL human rights violations must end and mechanisms set up to guarantee human rights for everyone equally.

    And Judo, no, I am not ashamed of myself because the scenario you created in your head simply does not exist. You could see that if you just take a look at the past couple dozen blog posts or our websites. To contend that AI focuses on Israel unfairly and to the 'exclusion of all other human rights violations in the middles east' is clearly untrue.

  3. Hello Judo,

    Anyone who follows Amnesty International's work around the world, especially these past several weeks, will know that you have no idea what you're talking about, but for those who may be visiting this site for the first time, reading your post for the first time and not realizing your m.o. (modus operandi) or are not familiar with Amnesty and it's work I feel I must respond.

    Amnesty International (AI) does not take a position on political issues or take sides in any conflict; AI is a human rights organization that advocates for human rights and campaigns on behalf of individuals and themes to advance respect for basic human rights for everyone. It holds all parties to the same applicable standards and bases its work on international law and standards.

    AI reports on all the countries in the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) region and those who are interested can visit the main, international Amnesty website, http://www.amnesty.org, or the website for the U.S. section of AI at http://www.amnestyusa.org to see a sampling of work being done on human rights violations – especially the MENA region at this time.

    Judo's statistic on our work on other MENA countries vs. our work on Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Palestinian Authority is simply fabricated. Also, AI does not measure 'who is worse than who' or commits 'the worst' human rights violations. AI's position is that ALL human rights violations must end and mechanisms set up to guarantee human rights for everyone equally.

    And Judo, no, I am not ashamed of myself because the scenario you created in your head simply does not exist. You could see that if you just take a look at the past couple dozen blog posts or our websites. To contend that AI focuses on Israel unfairly and to the 'exclusion of all other human rights violations in the middles east' is clearly untrue.

  4. Hello Judo,

    Anyone who follows Amnesty International's work around the world, especially these past several weeks, will know that you have no idea what you're talking about, but for those who may be visiting this site for the first time, reading your post for the first time and not realizing your m.o. (modus operandi) or are not familiar with Amnesty and it's work I feel I must respond.

    Amnesty International (AI) does not take a position on political issues or take sides in any conflict; AI is a human rights organization that advocates for human rights and campaigns on behalf of individuals and themes to advance respect for basic human rights for everyone. It holds all parties to the same applicable standards and bases its work on international law and standards.

    AI reports on all the countries in the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) region and those who are interested can visit the main, international Amnesty website, http://www.amnesty.org, or the website for the U.S. section of AI at http://www.amnestyusa.org to see a sampling of work being done on human rights violations – especially the MENA region at this time.

    Judo's statistic on our work on other MENA countries vs. our work on Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Palestinian Authority is simply fabricated. Also, AI does not measure 'who is worse than who' or commits 'the worst' human rights violations. AI's position is that ALL human rights violations must end and mechanisms set up to guarantee human rights for everyone equally.

    And Judo, no, I am not ashamed of myself because the scenario you created in your head simply does not exist. You could see that if you just take a look at the past couple dozen blog posts or our websites. To contend that AI focuses on Israel unfairly and to the 'exclusion of all other human rights violations in the middles east' is clearly untrue.

  5. Edith:

    Over the last few decades Amnesty International has focused at a minimum, 10 TIMES as much attention Palestine as on all the human rights violations against the other the 200 million Arabs combined.

    Even though it is now clear as day on the TV news for all to see and hear that the 98% of Arabs who did not live in Palestine suffered all these years far worse at the hands of own Arab dictators than the Palestinians ever suffered from Israel.

    Amnesty willfully ignored these mass crimes against humanity of 20 different Arab dictatorships, the millions upon million of innocents stripped of any human rights, imprisoned, tortured and executed by these horrific regimes now being overthrown.

    It is like they never existed for you.

    And why ?

    I’ll tell you.

    In order to focus almost exclusively on Israel and Palestine only, to pursue your own radical anti-Israeli agenda to the utter exclusion of all other human rights violations in the middles east.

    That is why and do not try to deny it.

    Aren’t you ashamed of yourself ?

    You would if you had any conscience at all.

    By your silence the blood of so many innocent Arabs that you never spoke out for is on Amnesty’s hands and on yours.

  6. Hello Judo,

    Anyone who follows Amnesty International’s work around the world, especially these past several weeks, will know that you have no idea what you’re talking about, but for those who may be visiting this site for the first time, reading your post for the first time and not realizing your m.o. (modus operandi) or are not familiar with Amnesty and it’s work I feel I must respond.

    Amnesty International (AI) does not take a position on political issues or take sides in any conflict; AI is a human rights organization that advocates for human rights and campaigns on behalf of individuals and themes to advance respect for basic human rights for everyone. It holds all parties to the same applicable standards and bases its work on international law and standards.

    AI reports on all the countries in the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) region and those who are interested can visit the main, international Amnesty website, http://www.amnesty.org, or the website for the U.S. section of AI at http://www.amnestyusa.org to see a sampling of work being done on human rights violations – especially the MENA region at this time.

    Judo’s statistic on our work on other MENA countries vs. our work on Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Palestinian Authority is simply fabricated. Also, AI does not measure ‘who is worse than who’ or commits ‘the worst’ human rights violations. AI’s position is that ALL human rights violations must end and mechanisms set up to guarantee human rights for everyone equally.

    And Judo, no, I am not ashamed of myself because the scenario you created in your head simply does not exist. You could see that if you just take a look at the past couple dozen blog posts or our websites. To contend that AI focuses on Israel unfairly and to the ‘exclusion of all other human rights violations in the middles east’ is clearly untrue.

  7. Good for the USA. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Building in your own capital is not an international crime.

    I agree with Judonimh —

    For whatever reason you have always had an anti-Israeli fettish. And have historically distorted and targetted Israel. When Israel is no longer the target of the dictators in the region – you'll have to find another victim defending itself to bash on.

    More and more people are seeing the truth.

  8. I live in Tulsa ok and if a government soldier came to my home and started to destroy it in order to build a new home for ANYONE, they would get shot at blown up, etc. It's that simple.

  9. Your good to go in Tulsa. Just don't build your house in your neighbors yard and you'll never have that problem.

  10. Good for the USA. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Building in your own capital is not an international crime.

    I agree with Judonimh —

    For whatever reason you have always had an anti-Israeli fettish. And have historically distorted and targetted Israel. When Israel is no longer the target of the dictators in the region – you’ll have to find another victim defending itself to bash on.

    More and more people are seeing the truth.

  11. I live in Tulsa ok and if a government soldier came to my home and started to destroy it in order to build a new home for ANYONE, they would get shot at blown up, etc. It’s that simple.

  12. Your good to go in Tulsa. Just don’t build your house in your neighbors yard and you’ll never have that problem.

  13. Ms. Garwood,

    Thank you for your post. The US's veto is not surprising, but disturbing and frustrating nonethless.

    However, I disagree with AI's characterization of the veto as giving Israel a "green light" to continue with illegal settlements. The fact that a resolution does not get passed, by itself, does not undo or negate the international law provisions you highlight at the end of your post. It only means the Security Council was unable to pass a specific resolution regarding a particular instance of illegal activity. The veto is rightfully condemned by human rights advocates, but it should not be given any more power or effect than it deserves, especially given that the veto was the clear minority position.

    If people are looking for other sources of information on the illegality of the land expropriations and settlement construction in the Occupied Territories, the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has a very informative, well documented section of their website dedicated to the issue:
    http://www.btselem.org/english/Settlements/Index….

    Thank you again for your considered post.

    Sincerely,
    Erica

  14. Ms. Garwood,

    Thank you for your post. The US's veto is not surprising, but disturbing and frustrating nonethless.

    However, I disagree with AI's characterization of the veto as giving Israel a "green light" to continue with illegal settlements. The fact that a resolution does not get passed, by itself, does not undo or negate the international law provisions you highlight at the end of your post. It only means the Security Council was unable to pass a specific resolution regarding a particular instance of illegal activity. The veto is rightfully condemned by human rights advocates, but it should not be given any more power or effect than it deserves, especially given that the veto was the clear minority position.

    If people are looking for other sources of information on the illegality of the land expropriations and settlement construction in the Occupied Territories, the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has a very informative, well documented section of their website dedicated to the issue:
    http://www.btselem.org/english/Settlements/Index….

    Thank you again for your considered post.

    Sincerely,
    Erica

  15. Ms. Garwood,

    Thank you for your post. The US's veto is not surprising, but disturbing and frustrating nonethless.

    However, I disagree with AI's characterization of the veto as giving Israel a "green light" to continue with illegal settlements. The fact that a resolution does not get passed, by itself, does not undo or negate the international law provisions you highlight at the end of your post. It only means the Security Council was unable to pass a specific resolution regarding a particular instance of illegal activity. The veto is rightfully condemned by human rights advocates, but it should not be given any more power or effect than it deserves, especially given that the veto was the clear minority position.

    If people are looking for other sources of information on the illegality of the land expropriations and settlement construction in the Occupied Territories, the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has a very informative, well documented section of their website dedicated to the issue:
    http://www.btselem.org/english/Settlements/Index….

    Thank you again for your considered post.

    Sincerely,
    Erica

  16. i couldn't agree more with Ms Garwood's point that the US veto is a green light to the illegal & nonstop Zionist settlement building in Palestine.

    If the veto's not a green light, i don't know what is.

    & the veto's not a mere "minority position", either …..

    The US vetoes, in fact, have for DECADES hobbled the UN from doing anything real & CONCRETE to stop the Zionist Apartheid settler state & its Apartheid settler imperialism.

    Indeed, without the ENDLESS US largesse to israel ( to the neglect of Americans themselves, whose government lets them stand in the freezing cold in Wisconsin for their elementary rights !! ), this tiny Apartheid state of israel, pop. 7 million, wouldn't be what it is today … the shredder of international law & the sole state of Permanent War in the world after the US itself.

    & come September, we may see a Third israeli Invasion of Lebanon … to be followed by yet ANOTHER US veto in israel's favor, no doubt !

  17. Edith:
    you wrote: "Israel’s policy of settling its civilians on occupied land violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and is considered a war crime, according to the statute of the International Criminal Court."

    Now correct me if I am not wrong but is this the same International Criminal Court that has never made a single ruling against the American-British invasion of Iraq that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, this the same International Criminal Court that has never ruled against the 60 year occupation and cultural genocide of Tibet by China, this the same International Criminal Court that has never ruled on the Russian genocide in Chechnya that lead to the deaths of 1/3 the population, etc.etc. etc. etc. etc.

    In fact this is the same ridiculous Kangaroo Court whose judges have been appointed from some of the worst human rights abusing dictatorships on earth, that has never hardly ruled on anything about any country anywhere except to attack Israel over and over again.

    In any event, here is the full text of article 49 of the Geneva Convention. I do not see anything forbidding Jews from buying land in eastern Jerusalem from the Arab owners. Please show me where exactly this is in the Geneva Convention, because just claiming the extremely biased International Kangaroo Court says it does not make it true. in fact as you can plainly see, this is an anti Israeli made up LIE and an invention by this biased so called court.

    So where is it Edith?
    Where does it say in the Geneva Convention a Jew, only because of his religion cannot buy land in eastern Jerusalem ?

    Where, liar?

    =======================================================
    Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

    Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

    The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

    The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

    The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

    The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
    =====================================================

  18. Ms. Garwood,

    Thank you for your post. The US’s veto is not surprising, but disturbing and frustrating nonethless.

    However, I disagree with AI’s characterization of the veto as giving Israel a “green light” to continue with illegal settlements. The fact that a resolution does not get passed, by itself, does not undo or negate the international law provisions you highlight at the end of your post. It only means the Security Council was unable to pass a specific resolution regarding a particular instance of illegal activity. The veto is rightfully condemned by human rights advocates, but it should not be given any more power or effect than it deserves, especially given that the veto was the clear minority position.

    If people are looking for other sources of information on the illegality of the land expropriations and settlement construction in the Occupied Territories, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem has a very informative, well documented section of their website dedicated to the issue:

    http://www.btselem.org/english/Settlements/Index.asp

    Thank you again for your considered post.

    Sincerely,
    Erica

  19. Erica,

    Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

    You’re absolutely right that the veto does not change the illegality of settlement building in occupied territory or undo international law, but it is a bit more powerful than simply ‘a minority position’.

    There’s been a struggle since 1967 over whether negotiations should be based on international law which would mean using the 1949 armistice line or ‘green line’ for territorial discussions or ‘facts on the ground’ that Israel has been doggedly creating with their support of settlement building and expansion and the subsequent infrastructure of roads, water and electrical systems within the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

    International Law (‘green line’) vs. Facts on the Ground (settlements and population centers).

    The veto is a ‘green light’ in that the U.S. (although minority in number, majority in economic, political and military power) by not re-affirming settlements as illegal has essentially re-drawn the line in the sand in this tug 'o war and has made settlements negotiable between two parties rather than ‘illegal’- period.

    Those of us who love rule of law and human rights know settlements are still illegal, but in the real world where politics rule and international law is considered merely suggestions, international law has taken a hit.

    Israel not only has no reason to stop or freeze settlement building, but if anything, they see that their position is only strengthened with more settlements in the OPT and thus will continue without hindrance from international censure.

    The U.S. didn't just NOT support international law, but its own long-held ‘official’ position on the status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This should not be under-estimated.

  20. Edith:

    I am still waiting for an answer.

    Where exactly in the 1949 Geneva convention does it say that a Jew, only because of his religion, may not buy land from the Arab owner in eastern Jerusalem?

    I have provided you above with the full text of article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention often cited in this regard, in case you have never actually read it before, as seems probable.

    Where does it say a Jew, only because of his religion, may not buy land from the Arab owner in eastern Jerusalem?

    I do know this is a death penalty offense under Palestinian law, to sell your land to a Jew, and hundreds of Palestinians have been executed or murdered for this supposed crime, but where does it say this is illegal in the Geneva Convention ?

    Where ?

  21. i couldn’t agree more with Ms Garwood’s point that the US veto is a green light to the illegal & nonstop Zionist settlement building in Palestine.

    If the veto’s not a green light, i don’t know what is.

    & the veto’s not a mere “minority position”, either …..

    The US vetoes, in fact, have for DECADES hobbled the UN from doing anything real & CONCRETE to stop the Zionist Apartheid settler state & its Apartheid settler imperialism.

    Indeed, without the ENDLESS US largesse to israel ( to the neglect of Americans themselves, whose government lets them stand in the freezing cold in Wisconsin for their elementary rights !! ), this tiny Apartheid state of israel, pop. 7 million, wouldn’t be what it is today … the shredder of international law & the sole state of Permanent War in the world after the US itself.

    & come September, we may see a Third israeli Invasion of Lebanon … to be followed by yet ANOTHER US veto in israel’s favor, no doubt !

  22. Edith:
    you wrote: “Israel’s policy of settling its civilians on occupied land violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and is considered a war crime, according to the statute of the International Criminal Court.”

    Now correct me if I am not wrong but is this the same International Criminal Court that has never made a single ruling against the American-British invasion of Iraq that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, this the same International Criminal Court that has never ruled against the 60 year occupation and cultural genocide of Tibet by China, this the same International Criminal Court that has never ruled on the Russian genocide in Chechnya that lead to the deaths of 1/3 the population, etc.etc. etc. etc. etc.

    In fact this is the same ridiculous Kangaroo Court whose judges have been appointed from some of the worst human rights abusing dictatorships on earth, that has never hardly ruled on anything about any country anywhere except to attack Israel over and over again.

    In any event, here is the full text of article 49 of the Geneva Convention. I do not see anything forbidding Jews from buying land in eastern Jerusalem from the Arab owners. Please show me where exactly this is in the Geneva Convention, because just claiming the extremely biased International Kangaroo Court says it does not make it true. in fact as you can plainly see, this is an anti Israeli made up LIE and an invention by this biased so called court.

    So where is it Edith?
    Where does it say in the Geneva Convention a Jew, only because of his religion cannot buy land in eastern Jerusalem ?

    Where, liar?

    =======================================================
    Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

    Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

    The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

    The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

    The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

    The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
    =====================================================

  23. Erica,

    Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

    You’re absolutely right that the veto does not change the illegality of settlement building in occupied territory or undo international law, but it is a bit more powerful than simply ‘a minority position’.

    There’s been a struggle since 1967 over whether negotiations should be based on international law which would mean using the 1949 armistice line or ‘green line’ for territorial discussions or ‘facts on the ground’ that Israel has been doggedly creating with their support of settlement building and expansion and the subsequent infrastructure of roads, water and electrical systems within the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

    International Law (‘green line’) vs. Facts on the Ground (settlements and population centers).

    The veto is a ‘green light’ in that the U.S. (although minority in number, majority in economic, political and military power) by not re-affirming settlements as illegal has essentially re-drawn the line in the sand in this tug ‘o war and has made settlements negotiable between two parties rather than ‘illegal’- period.

    Those of us who love rule of law and human rights know settlements are still illegal, but in the real world where politics rule and international law is considered merely suggestions, international law has taken a hit.

    Israel not only has no reason to stop or freeze settlement building, but if anything, they see that their position is only strengthened with more settlements in the OPT and thus will continue without hindrance from international censure.

    The U.S. didn’t just NOT support international law, but its own long-held ‘official’ position on the status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This should not be under-estimated.

  24. Edith:

    I am still waiting for an answer.

    Where exactly in the 1949 Geneva convention does it say that a Jew, only because of his religion, may not buy land from the Arab owner in eastern Jerusalem?

    I have provided you above with the full text of article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention often cited in this regard, in case you have never actually read it before, as seems probable.

    Where does it say a Jew, only because of his religion, may not buy land from the Arab owner in eastern Jerusalem?

    I do know this is a death penalty offense under Palestinian law, to sell your land to a Jew, and hundreds of Palestinians have been executed or murdered for this supposed crime, but where does it say this is illegal in the Geneva Convention ?

    Where ?

  25. What's the use of yelling "Liar" at others ?

    What's the use of turning things upside down on their heads ?

    Mr. Judo tries to simplify & dilute the whole thing as if it's all just a matter of A Jew wishing to buy land from AN Arab in E. Jerusalem.

    As if the whole issue's only about ISOLATED, INDIVIDUAL efforts of honest land purchases by Jews from Arabs !

    Is THAT what's been going on here … for 44 YEARS ???

    We're talking of the Israeli Apartheid STATE now planning to apply THE SAME
    ZONING & CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES to BOTH EAST and WEST JERUSALEM … to thus FORCIBLY TRY to UNIFY the ENTIRE CITY UNDER THE ISRAELI GRIP.

    We're talking here of a planned expansion to swallow private Arab properties EN MASSE.

    We're talking too of 44 years of illegal settlement expansion.

    We're talking FORCED EVICTIONS here .. of Palestinians .

    We're talking of Israel CANCELLING Palestinian residences.

    We're talking construction of the Separation Wall here.

    We're talking cutting the entire city of Jerusalem off from the West Bank.

    We're talking of israel's attempt to foist its "sovereignty" over West Jerusalem as well, when in reality the US, the EU & all major Powers hold Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under UN Resolution 181… where any further,new status for Jerusalem can come only through a peace treaty between israel & the Palestinians.

    There's no room here for Mr Judo's above spurious scenario of piecemeal land purchases occuring within a vacuum of uncoerced intercommunal amity .

    This is Grand Theft Jerusalem …. Grand Theft Palestine.

  26. What’s the use of yelling “Liar” at others ?

    What’s the use of turning things upside down on their heads ?

    Mr. Judo tries to simplify & dilute the whole thing as if it’s all just a matter of A Jew wishing to buy land from AN Arab in E. Jerusalem.

    As if the whole issue’s only about ISOLATED, INDIVIDUAL efforts of honest land purchases by Jews from Arabs !

    Is THAT what’s been going on here … for 44 YEARS ???

    We’re talking of the Israeli Apartheid STATE now planning to apply THE SAME
    ZONING & CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES to BOTH EAST and WEST JERUSALEM … to thus FORCIBLY TRY to UNIFY the ENTIRE CITY UNDER THE ISRAELI GRIP.

    We’re talking here of a planned expansion to swallow private Arab properties EN MASSE.

    We’re talking too of 44 years of illegal settlement expansion.

    We’re talking FORCED EVICTIONS here .. of Palestinians .

    We’re talking of Israel CANCELLING Palestinian residences.

    We’re talking construction of the Separation Wall here.

    We’re talking cutting the entire city of Jerusalem off from the West Bank.

    We’re talking of israel’s attempt to foist its “sovereignty” over West Jerusalem as well, when in reality the US, the EU & all major Powers hold Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under UN Resolution 181… where any further,new status for Jerusalem can come only through a peace treaty between israel & the Palestinians.

    There’s no room here for Mr Judo’s above spurious scenario of piecemeal land purchases occuring within a vacuum of uncoerced intercommunal amity .

    This is Grand Theft Jerusalem …. Grand Theft Palestine.

  27. Those who would like to know in detail how Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), including the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law, please refer to the AI document at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/085/… ‘Israel and the Occupied Territories: The issue of settlements must be addressed according to international law’.

    Judo,

    International law is not based on a person’s race, religion, ethnicity, color, language, sexual orientation or any other personalized attribute.

    The conventions and regulations which make it illegal for the State of Israel to manipulate or change the demography or ‘condition’ of occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank or allow it's private citizens to do so is not based on race or religion so would not say anywhere within the text that ‘a Jew, only because of his religion cannot buy land in eastern Jerusalem’.

    It is legal for someone who is Jewish to buy land within Israel itself, but buying land within territory occupied by Israel is not – it is ‘occupied’. While military occupation is legal under int’l law, there are specific rules governing the actions of an occupying power.

    • An occupying power, in this case Israel, cannot transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies either directly or indirectly (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). Statements by different Israeli administrations have stated it is necessary both strategically and security-wise to hold onto the territories and government agencies have been organized to support settlements.

    Government run programs have long provided wide-ranging support for settlements both deemed ‘legal’ and some even deemed ‘illegal’ under domestic Israeli law (‘New support for West Bank outpost’ at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7965503.st… ‘How the state helped right-wing groups settle East Jerusalem’ at http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/ful….

    Israel provides subsidies for housing construction and loans/grants to Israeli citizens to settle in what Israel calls ‘Judea and Samaria’ as well as supporting the requisite infrastructure for water, electricity and transportation (roads). The government also supports settlement education, healthcare and security measures. This is in addition to the protection offered by the Israeli military itself.

    • These actions also violate the provision that an occupying power cannot change the demography or condition of the occupied territory except for the benefit of the population living under that occupation (Article 55 of the Hague Regulations).

    The settlement system, as well as the subsequent population growth within the occupied territories, changes the character, state, demography and nature of the whole area.

    • The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court includes the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population, either directly or indirectly, as a war crime.

    These provisos outline how settlement building is illegal under international law, but then there are a slew of additional violations of human rights created by this unequal system in the occupied territories due to discriminatory laws and policies in force.

    Palestinians must follow a confusing, multi-layered system of laws that date back to the Ottoman and British Mandate periods with layers of Israeli military orders added while under occupation. Israeli settlers continue to come under Israel’s legal jurisdiction and a separate set of discriminatory policies set up for the OPT. For instance, Israeli settlers are allowed to dig wells to a much deeper depth than their Palestinian neighbours. This favours one party over the other for access to water and contributes to the problem of unequal distribution of natural resources based on nationality, religion or ethnicity. That is only one example.

    NOTE: Israel disputes the status of ‘Judea and Samaria’ as occupied territory and believes East and West Jerusalem make up the undivided capital of Israel. No other country, with the exception of Micronesia, supports this view. It is international consensus that East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are occupied territories and Israel is the occupying power and must observe these legal obligations. The international community also does not recognize Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem. ‘Official’ U.S. policy supports this position.

    Also, all members of the United Nations recognize international customary law and principles including the fact that member nations cannot acquire territory through force. The U.S. went to war in 1991 on this principle on behalf of Kuwait against Iraq. I thought it important to make this clear as I repeatedly hear people saying that Israel ‘captured’ or ‘won’ these areas in 1967, completely ignoring this principle. This principle has been repeatedly reaffirmed in various UN Security Council resolutions and the General Assembly’s ‘Friendly Relations Declaration’.

    Israel has the right to take reasonable, necessary and proportionate measures to protect the security of its citizens and its borders and to make changes on the ground in the OPT for the benefit of the inhabitants (Palestinians), but it does not have the right to build settlements and other infrastructure there that not only infringe on Palestinian human rights, but serve as an obstacle to peace negotiations.

    These laws seek to protect those living under occupation, but also to maintain and stabilize areas under occupation until a final negotiation can take place to the satisfaction of both parties. Military occupation, while legal, was intended solely as a temporary military imperative during a time of conflict – a temporary measure, not one that would drag on for decades allowing facts on the ground to be created that would pre-determine a negotiated conclusion.

  28. Those who would like to know in detail how Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), including the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law, please refer to the AI document at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/085/… ‘Israel and the Occupied Territories: The issue of settlements must be addressed according to international law’.

    Judo,

    International law is not based on a person’s race, religion, ethnicity, color, language, sexual orientation or any other personalized attribute.

    The conventions and regulations which make it illegal for the State of Israel to manipulate or change the demography or ‘condition’ of occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank or allow it's private citizens to do so is not based on race or religion so would not say anywhere within the text that ‘a Jew, only because of his religion cannot buy land in eastern Jerusalem’.

    It is legal for someone who is Jewish to buy land within Israel itself, but buying land within territory occupied by Israel is not – it is ‘occupied’. While military occupation is legal under int’l law, there are specific rules governing the actions of an occupying power.

    • An occupying power, in this case Israel, cannot transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies either directly or indirectly (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). Statements by different Israeli administrations have stated it is necessary both strategically and security-wise to hold onto the territories and government agencies have been organized to support settlements.

    Government run programs have long provided wide-ranging support for settlements both deemed ‘legal’ and some even deemed ‘illegal’ under domestic Israeli law (‘New support for West Bank outpost’ at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7965503.st… ‘How the state helped right-wing groups settle East Jerusalem’ at http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/ful….

    Israel provides subsidies for housing construction and loans/grants to Israeli citizens to settle in what Israel calls ‘Judea and Samaria’ as well as supporting the requisite infrastructure for water, electricity and transportation (roads). The government also supports settlement education, healthcare and security measures. This is in addition to the protection offered by the Israeli military itself.

    • These actions also violate the provision that an occupying power cannot change the demography or condition of the occupied territory except for the benefit of the population living under that occupation (Article 55 of the Hague Regulations).

    The settlement system, as well as the subsequent population growth within the occupied territories, changes the character, state, demography and nature of the whole area.

    • The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court includes the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population, either directly or indirectly, as a war crime.

    These provisos outline how settlement building is illegal under international law, but then there are a slew of additional violations of human rights created by this unequal system in the occupied territories due to discriminatory laws and policies in force.

    Palestinians must follow a confusing, multi-layered system of laws that date back to the Ottoman and British Mandate periods with layers of Israeli military orders added while under occupation. Israeli settlers continue to come under Israel’s legal jurisdiction and a separate set of discriminatory policies set up for the OPT. For instance, Israeli settlers are allowed to dig wells to a much deeper depth than their Palestinian neighbours. This favours one party over the other for access to water and contributes to the problem of unequal distribution of natural resources based on nationality, religion or ethnicity. That is only one example.

    NOTE: Israel disputes the status of ‘Judea and Samaria’ as occupied territory and believes East and West Jerusalem make up the undivided capital of Israel. No other country, with the exception of Micronesia, supports this view. It is international consensus that East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are occupied territories and Israel is the occupying power and must observe these legal obligations. The international community also does not recognize Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem. ‘Official’ U.S. policy supports this position.

    Also, all members of the United Nations recognize international customary law and principles including the fact that member nations cannot acquire territory through force. The U.S. went to war in 1991 on this principle on behalf of Kuwait against Iraq. I thought it important to make this clear as I repeatedly hear people saying that Israel ‘captured’ or ‘won’ these areas in 1967, completely ignoring this principle. This principle has been repeatedly reaffirmed in various UN Security Council resolutions and the General Assembly’s ‘Friendly Relations Declaration’.

    Israel has the right to take reasonable, necessary and proportionate measures to protect the security of its citizens and its borders and to make changes on the ground in the OPT for the benefit of the inhabitants (Palestinians), but it does not have the right to build settlements and other infrastructure there that not only infringe on Palestinian human rights, but serve as an obstacle to peace negotiations.

    These laws seek to protect those living under occupation, but also to maintain and stabilize areas under occupation until a final negotiation can take place to the satisfaction of both parties. Military occupation, while legal, was intended solely as a temporary military imperative during a time of conflict – a temporary measure, not one that would drag on for decades allowing facts on the ground to be created that would pre-determine a negotiated conclusion.

  29. Those who would like to know in detail how Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), including the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law, please refer to the AI document at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/085/… ‘Israel and the Occupied Territories: The issue of settlements must be addressed according to international law’.

    Judo,

    International law is not based on a person’s race, religion, ethnicity, color, language, sexual orientation or any other personalized attribute.

    The conventions and regulations which make it illegal for the State of Israel to manipulate or change the demography or ‘condition’ of occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank or allow it's private citizens to do so is not based on race or religion so would not say anywhere within the text that ‘a Jew, only because of his religion cannot buy land in eastern Jerusalem’.

    It is legal for someone who is Jewish to buy land within Israel itself, but buying land within territory occupied by Israel is not – it is ‘occupied’. While military occupation is legal under int’l law, there are specific rules governing the actions of an occupying power.

    • An occupying power, in this case Israel, cannot transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies either directly or indirectly (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). Statements by different Israeli administrations have stated it is necessary both strategically and security-wise to hold onto the territories and government agencies have been organized to support settlements.

    Government run programs have long provided wide-ranging support for settlements both deemed ‘legal’ and some even deemed ‘illegal’ under domestic Israeli law (‘New support for West Bank outpost’ at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7965503.st… ‘How the state helped right-wing groups settle East Jerusalem’ at http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/ful….

    Israel provides subsidies for housing construction and loans/grants to Israeli citizens to settle in what Israel calls ‘Judea and Samaria’ as well as supporting the requisite infrastructure for water, electricity and transportation (roads). The government also supports settlement education, healthcare and security measures. This is in addition to the protection offered by the Israeli military itself.

    • These actions also violate the provision that an occupying power cannot change the demography or condition of the occupied territory except for the benefit of the population living under that occupation (Article 55 of the Hague Regulations).

    The settlement system, as well as the subsequent population growth within the occupied territories, changes the character, state, demography and nature of the whole area.

    • The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court includes the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population, either directly or indirectly, as a war crime.

    These provisos outline how settlement building is illegal under international law, but then there are a slew of additional violations of human rights created by this unequal system in the occupied territories due to discriminatory laws and policies in force.

    Palestinians must follow a confusing, multi-layered system of laws that date back to the Ottoman and British Mandate periods with layers of Israeli military orders added while under occupation. Israeli settlers continue to come under Israel’s legal jurisdiction and a separate set of discriminatory policies set up for the OPT. For instance, Israeli settlers are allowed to dig wells to a much deeper depth than their Palestinian neighbours. This favours one party over the other for access to water and contributes to the problem of unequal distribution of natural resources based on nationality, religion or ethnicity. That is only one example.

    NOTE: Israel disputes the status of ‘Judea and Samaria’ as occupied territory and believes East and West Jerusalem make up the undivided capital of Israel. No other country, with the exception of Micronesia, supports this view. It is international consensus that East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are occupied territories and Israel is the occupying power and must observe these legal obligations. The international community also does not recognize Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem. ‘Official’ U.S. policy supports this position.

    Also, all members of the United Nations recognize international customary law and principles including the fact that member nations cannot acquire territory through force. The U.S. went to war in 1991 on this principle on behalf of Kuwait against Iraq. I thought it important to make this clear as I repeatedly hear people saying that Israel ‘captured’ or ‘won’ these areas in 1967, completely ignoring this principle. This principle has been repeatedly reaffirmed in various UN Security Council resolutions and the General Assembly’s ‘Friendly Relations Declaration’.

    Israel has the right to take reasonable, necessary and proportionate measures to protect the security of its citizens and its borders and to make changes on the ground in the OPT for the benefit of the inhabitants (Palestinians), but it does not have the right to build settlements and other infrastructure there that not only infringe on Palestinian human rights, but serve as an obstacle to peace negotiations.

    These laws seek to protect those living under occupation, but also to maintain and stabilize areas under occupation until a final negotiation can take place to the satisfaction of both parties. Military occupation, while legal, was intended solely as a temporary military imperative during a time of conflict – a temporary measure, not one that would drag on for decades allowing facts on the ground to be created that would pre-determine a negotiated conclusion.

  30. Those who would like to know in detail how Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), including the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law, please refer to the AI document at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/085/2003/en, ‘Israel and the Occupied Territories: The issue of settlements must be addressed according to international law’.

    Judo,

    International law is not based on a person’s race, religion, ethnicity, color, language, sexual orientation or any other personalized attribute.

    The conventions and regulations which make it illegal for the State of Israel to manipulate or change the demography or ‘condition’ of occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank or allow it’s private citizens to do so is not based on race or religion so would not say anywhere within the text that ‘a Jew, only because of his religion cannot buy land in eastern Jerusalem’.

    It is legal for someone who is Jewish to buy land within Israel itself, but buying land within territory occupied by Israel is not – it is ‘occupied’. While military occupation is legal under int’l law, there are specific rules governing the actions of an occupying power.

    • An occupying power, in this case Israel, cannot transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies either directly or indirectly (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). Statements by different Israeli administrations have stated it is necessary both strategically and security-wise to hold onto the territories and government agencies have been organized to support settlements.

    Government run programs have long provided wide-ranging support for settlements both deemed ‘legal’ and some even deemed ‘illegal’ under domestic Israeli law (‘New support for West Bank outpost’ at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7965503.stm; ‘How the state helped right-wing groups settle East Jerusalem’ at http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/full-haaretz-expose-how-the-state-helped-right-wing-groups-settle-east-jerusalem-1.323312).

    Israel provides subsidies for housing construction and loans/grants to Israeli citizens to settle in what Israel calls ‘Judea and Samaria’ as well as supporting the requisite infrastructure for water, electricity and transportation (roads). The government also supports settlement education, healthcare and security measures. This is in addition to the protection offered by the Israeli military itself.

    • These actions also violate the provision that an occupying power cannot change the demography or condition of the occupied territory except for the benefit of the population living under that occupation (Article 55 of the Hague Regulations).

    The settlement system, as well as the subsequent population growth within the occupied territories, changes the character, state, demography and nature of the whole area.

    • The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court includes the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population, either directly or indirectly, as a war crime.

    These provisos outline how settlement building is illegal under international law, but then there are a slew of additional violations of human rights created by this unequal system in the occupied territories due to discriminatory laws and policies in force.

    Palestinians must follow a confusing, multi-layered system of laws that date back to the Ottoman and British Mandate periods with layers of Israeli military orders added while under occupation. Israeli settlers continue to come under Israel’s legal jurisdiction and a separate set of discriminatory policies set up for the OPT. For instance, Israeli settlers are allowed to dig wells to a much deeper depth than their Palestinian neighbours. This favours one party over the other for access to water and contributes to the problem of unequal distribution of natural resources based on nationality, religion or ethnicity. That is only one example.

    NOTE: Israel disputes the status of ‘Judea and Samaria’ as occupied territory and believes East and West Jerusalem make up the undivided capital of Israel. No other country, with the exception of Micronesia, supports this view. It is international consensus that East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are occupied territories and Israel is the occupying power and must observe these legal obligations. The international community also does not recognize Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem. ‘Official’ U.S. policy supports this position.

    Also, all members of the United Nations recognize international customary law and principles including the fact that member nations cannot acquire territory through force. The U.S. went to war in 1991 on this principle on behalf of Kuwait against Iraq. I thought it important to make this clear as I repeatedly hear people saying that Israel ‘captured’ or ‘won’ these areas in 1967, completely ignoring this principle. This principle has been repeatedly reaffirmed in various UN Security Council resolutions and the General Assembly’s ‘Friendly Relations Declaration’.

    Israel has the right to take reasonable, necessary and proportionate measures to protect the security of its citizens and its borders and to make changes on the ground in the OPT for the benefit of the inhabitants (Palestinians), but it does not have the right to build settlements and other infrastructure there that not only infringe on Palestinian human rights, but serve as an obstacle to peace negotiations.

    These laws seek to protect those living under occupation, but also to maintain and stabilize areas under occupation until a final negotiation can take place to the satisfaction of both parties. Military occupation, while legal, was intended solely as a temporary military imperative during a time of conflict – a temporary measure, not one that would drag on for decades allowing facts on the ground to be created that would pre-determine a negotiated conclusion.