EU Angers Israel by Adopting Resolution Against 'Illegal' Settlements

[Hasbara Buster]

EU Angers Israel by Adopting Resolution Against 'Illegal' Settlements

The ongoing row between the EU and Israel has continued with Brussels adopting a resolution criticizing Israel for creating a series of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The EU foreign affairs council agreed upon the resolution, which came after five countries were placed under significant diplomatic pressure by Israeli officials to block the move.

The resolution states that EU-Israeli agreements only apply to the pre-1967 Israeli border, and that the "EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967.

This does not constitute a boycott of Israel, which the EU strongly opposes."

Settlements 'Constitute an Obstacle to Peace'

In an attempt to put pressure on Israel over the creation of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, the resolution called for a "fundamental change of policy" by Benjamin Netanyahu's government to help "enhance stability and security for both Israelis and Palestinians."

"Recalling that settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two state solution impossible, the EU reiterates its strong opposition to Israel's settlement policy and actions taken in this context. It urges Israel to end all settlement activity and to dismantle the outposts erected since March 2001, in line with prior obligations. Settlement activity in East Jerusalem seriously jeopardizes the possibility of Jerusalem serving as the future capital of both States."

The council also called for the lifting of the blockade of Gaza, which has crippled the Palestinian economy by preventing a flow of goods into the Palestinian enclave for close to a decade.

It's understood that Israel lobbied Greece, Cyprus, Hungary, Bulgaria and Czech Republic to form a bloc and oppose the resolution, however all rejected the plea.

Further Dent in EU-Israeli Relations

The developments, which attempt to strongly define a difference between Israel's pre-1967 borders and Palestinian territories, come amid a further breakdown in relations between Israel and the EU, with a number of European officials angry at the state of negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian representatives.

Last year the EU enraged Israel after insisting that items produced in Israeli settlements must be labeled as such, and not as products of Israel.

This led to Israel suspending EU officials from the Palestinian peace process, while prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week called for a "reset" in relations between his country and Brussels, saying the EU had a "natural tendency" to "single out Israel and treat it in ways that other countries are not being dealt with."

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160119/1033385977/eu-israel-relations-fallout.html#ixzz3xiKEviOs

 

[Jungibaaz]

The entitled state whining when normal procedure is applied.

 

[rockstar08]

Expecting more Terror attacks in EU ...

 

[yugocrosrb95]

Expecting more Terror attacks in EU ...

Jews starting terror attacks soon...

 

[Solomon2]

"Recalling that settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two state solution impossible -"

EU knows very well that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank aren't illegal under international law. They just want the Jews to do their fighting for them - a man running from a bear won't have to fight it if he can throw another man to the animal instead.

 

[Jungibaaz]

"Recalling that settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two state solution impossible -"

EU knows very well that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank aren't illegal under international law. They just want the Jews to do their fighting for them - a man running from a bear won't have to fight it if he can throw another man to the animal instead.

Most recognized authorities on the matter, and most states in the world do believe that settlements are illegal under international law and do strongly believe that the fourth Geneva convention is applicable. Both the settlements and the larger occupied territories since 1967. I'd go so far as saying that they aren't even 'occupied', when you hold territory for that long it's called 'annexation'.

As much as Israel and Israelis like to dispute these things hopelessly and wrongly, hardly anyone in the rest of the world, or neutral party sees it Israel's way. Now even the more supportive European states aren't supportive of the schizophrenic behavior of the Israeli state.

 

[Tshering22]

I think EU should focus on the mass rioting and targeting of local citizens by so-called refugees happening. They need to look at what their citizens are demanding before questioning others.

The continent has gotten into this habit of being pompous about everything.

 

[Solomon2]

Most recognized authorities on the matter, and most states in the world do believe that settlements are illegal under international law and do strongly believe that the fourth Geneva convention is applicable.

That's what they say. But they can't back up their claims and in a quite un-legal fashion rely on numbers instead! It is an embarrassment to them.

Now even the more supportive European states aren't supportive of the schizophrenic behavior -

France took the path of schizophrenia in the 1960s, most noticeably after the Six-Day War when DeGaulle took an openly antisemitic path, describing Jews as: “elite people, sure of themselves and domineering” .

The Jews of Israel had, after all, succeeded in defeating the nascent Arab blitzkrieg where France (and so some extent himself) had failed. (And his French Army colleague who predicted it, a fellow general, was himself Jewish.)

From that moment France switched course from regarding Israel as an ally to providing aid and comfort to its enemies: instead of the Arab/Muslim world fighting its milllennia-old enemy the Franks, the Arabs could be distracted by waving the Jews, with France benefiting from Arab labor and oil. And in time, France exercised its famed "soft power" to pull in the rest of Europe - though ex-Soviet Eastern Europe is still battling this.

The French thought they could take in immigrants and civilize them into Gauls through education [link1, link2]. They forgot the lesson of history when a rapidly expanding and aggressive population meets a static and stable and comparatively sedentary one: instead of Rome civilizing the immigrant barbarians, the immigrants barbarized the Romans.

The international community knows the score: the Jews were authorized to re-settle the area under the terms of the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate that designated the area as the Jews' National Home under British trusteeship. The abandonment of a trust by a trustee does not invalidate it. Only the 1947-67 Jordanian occupation of the "West Bank" and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza were illegal under international law and recognized as such, so Mandate Law still applies where Israel hasn't annexed territory. The U.N. and S.C. can't alter these terms more than temporarily without reference to the now-defunct Trusteeship Council. Claiming the Jews are there illegally is attempting to change the law ex post facto - a favorite of dictators and princes, but not of democracies and civilized societies.

This is the argument that's indisputable and silences those who mouth claims about the "illegality" of Israeli occupation. They then fall back on slander, repetition, numbers, etc.

 

[Jungibaaz]

That's what they say. But they can't back up their claims and in a quite un-legal fashion rely on numbers instead! It is an embarrassment to them.

France took the path of schizophrenia in the 1960s, most noticeably after the Six-Day War when DeGaulle took an openly antisemitic path, describing Jews as: “elite people, sure of themselves and domineering” .

The Jews of Israel had, after all, succeeded in defeating the nascent Arab blitzkrieg where France (and so some extent himself) had failed. (And his French Army colleague who predicted it, a fellow general, was himself Jewish.)

From that moment France switched course from regarding Israel as an ally to providing aid and comfort to its enemies: instead of the Arab/Muslim world fighting its milllennia-old enemy the Franks, the Arabs could be distracted by waving the Jews, with France benefiting from Arab labor and oil. And in time, France exercised its famed "soft power" to pull in the rest of Europe - though ex-Soviet Eastern Europe is still battling this.

The French thought they could take in immigrants and civilize them into Gauls through education [link1, link2]. They forgot the lesson of history when a rapidly expanding and aggressive population meets a static and stable and comparatively sedentary one: instead of Rome civilizing the immigrant barbarians, the immigrants barbarized the Romans.

The international community knows the score: the Jews were authorized to re-settle the area under the terms of the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate that designated the area as the Jews' National Home under British trusteeship. The abandonment of a trust by a trustee does not invalidate it. Only the 1947-67 Jordanian occupation of the "West Bank" and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza were illegal under international law and recognized as such, so Mandate Law still applies where Israel hasn't annexed territory. The U.N. and S.C. can't alter these terms more than temporarily without reference to the now-defunct Trusteeship Council. Claiming the Jews are there illegally is attempting to change the law ex post facto - a favorite of dictators and princes, but not of democracies and civilized societies.

This is the argument that's indisputable and silences those who mouth claims about the "illegality" of Israeli occupation. They then fall back on slander, repetition, numbers, etc.

You know if you weren't half as nuanced as you are in responding, most would be able to see right through the vale of sophistication and the semblance of any validity that you are trying hard to impose, it seems so to me, and I am well aware of just how cynical that sounds. Then again, it's probably because I'm not bothered by it all, I can see the heart of your argument and address that. So with that in mind, you ought to read this reply, and just a heads up for the future, with the greatest respect, you aren't speaking here to people who are lower than yourself in the mastery of words, logic and debate.

That's what they say. But they can't back up their claims and in a quite un-legal fashion rely on numbers instead! It is an embarrassment to them.

You mean you dispute the the opinions of said people and organisations? That's quite something.

Tell you what, just so that I can skip the whole spiel where we go back and forth until I eventually ask you to prove or argue for whatever reason it is that you dispute those rulings.

You were probably hoping I wouldn't press you on this matter, which I suspect is likely why you conveniently and quickly veered off topic to discuss Europe's relations with the Jewish state and then you went off-road in discussing immigration problems. Let it be another point worthy of note here... any member who does know how to follow debate may have been confused or rattled by that slight-of-hand, but that is not the case here. I will not be intimidated by such excellent footwork and defence disguised as a valid argument to what the nature of the thread and posts require the responses to discuss. Hence, I will also not indulge you in counter-argument over said points.

So, in short, ignoring your later slightly off-topic remarks about France and what not... let us discuss why it is you see people who argue that the settlements are illegal are wrong.

And now, I will assert the position of this sub-debate and reply, here are some organisations who feel that the settlements are illegal, and here are some reports on the legality of them.

The ICJ's ruling on the specific aspects of the occupation are clear as crystal, be it the settlements or the wall.
And they are in publicly archived reports.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1547.pdf

It openly states some aspects as 'contrary to international law'. (page 14, before the appendices).

The ILO hols similar views on the legality of these things. As they have made clear likewise.

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc93/pdf/rep-i-ax.pdf

On the applicability of the fourth Geneva convention, which I assume you dispute. The UN (general assembly AND SC) view the settlements as illegal and the fourth geneva convention applicable. Various resolutions found no legal validity for the settlements.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (446)
ODS HOME PAGE (452)
United Nations Security Council Resolution 465 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (465)
United Nations Official Document (471)
United Nations Official Document (476)

Most the world over agrees that they are illegal. Even Israel's most dedicated ally, the US has often questioned the legality of them, despite showing a soft spot when it comes down to it, vetoing or abstaining from the above resolutions.

US 'opposed' to Israeli settlements - Al Jazeera English
Clinton walks back Israel settlements remarks - Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com
Israeli settlements: US vetoes UNSC resolution - BBC News

Same goes for the IRC.

ICRC service

Your response should be simple and should start and end with, why you disagree with the rulings of all those above and most the world over.

 

[Solomon2]

The ICJ's ruling on the specific aspects of the occupation are clear as crystal -

That's not a "ruling" but a an Advisory Opinion that is based on specific assumptions that are not part of the body of international law. Characterizing it as a legal ruling is mere mischief.

The ILO hols similar views on the legality of these things.

The ILO makes clear that its view of security is expansive and not part of international law.

On the applicability of the fourth Geneva convention, which I assume you dispute. The UN (general assembly AND SC) view the settlements as illegal and the fourth geneva convention applicable.

Circular logic again.

Various resolutions found no legal validity for the settlements.

Which, as previously noted, do not have legal standing. Even a Chapter VII Resolution can't take away Jews' right to settle the region, it would have had to go through the Trusteeship Council since legally it's based on the Palestine Mandate.

Most the world over agrees -

As pointed out earlier, when the legal arguments fail, the majoritarian arguments are used instead - as if it's correct for five people to gang up against one innocent, simply because they are five and he is one.

As for the 4th Geneva Convention: Palestine wasn't a contracting party and Jews cannot be faulted ex post facto for settling - without coercion of settlers - into regions pre-existing international law says they are supposed to.