[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Also note, UN general assembly resolutions are not legally binding. Additionally, article 80 of the UN charter states:
‘nothing in the [U.N.] Charter shall be construed…to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.’
This would include article 6 of the mandate which encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.”
Then there’s the fact that the UN is notoriously anti-Israel - see ‘Zionism is racism’ resolution or Colonel Gaddafi leading the Human Rights Council.[/quote]
… Right or Wrong, when the ENTIRE WORLD says what you are doing is wrong, and you do it anyway, you are wrong… Even when you are right.
… [/quote]
So it follows that if “the entire world” is misinformed, only might makes right.
But let’s talk about “wrong” for a moment. In April 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Arab League–which had refused the Palestinians the right to have a homeland of their own, preferring instead to take all the Mandate–threatened to expel Jordan, one of its founding members. As a compromise, the Arab League and Jordan agreed in June 1950 that the “annexed” territory was to be held in “trusteeship” by Jordan. The West Bank was never a country, it had been administered territory since before the time of the Ottomans and that status continued after 1967.
So the “law” of occupied territories, it should be noted, does NOT apply to the West Bank–a territory acquired by and occupied by a separate power in 1948. (It should also be remembered that Jordan engaged in ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem in 1948 when it expelled Jews and Christians. And no one cared then.)
A small matter, to be sure, since “the entire world” has declared the truth to be otherwise. But these assertions have no value in a world where might makes law. If the people are not sovereign in the land, then the land belongs to its titled owners. Go find the titles and deeds, if you like. You might be surprised: many–but not all–the Israeli settlements were built on “unowned” property.
Last, regardless of the dubious international law, the settlements are stupid, but stupid to the degree that they cannot be defended and protected–and not more. Not “legal” or “illegal” but to some degree, indefensible. There is a difference between “wrong” and “stupid,” and between the opinion of “the entire world” and “the truth.”