EU Statement

1)Who is Catherine Ashton?
and
2)What does she know about the ME?
Answers:-
1)No One knows
and
2)Nothing

The Eu's "goal" of 2 States Israel and Palestine already exists, we must keep reminding them of the history and of the reality on the ground, Jordan is Palestine.

There are currently 47 Countries in the world where the Moslems are the majority. There is no need to carve out a little bit of territory west of the Jordan river to "create" another one, or is it two? what's their plan for Gaza?

The "settlements" are a Red Herring and will be used as an excuse for the Arabs to blame Israel for the "talks" failing.

The reality is that between the Med and the Jordan River there will either be Israel or "another" Arab Country, there is NOT the room for both.

So, if you support the right of The State of Israel to live in Peace and Security you cannot support the right for another Moslem State to be created in the ME.

For the facts on Jordan is Palestine

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/jordan-palestine

The settlements are not 'illegal'. No judicial Court has ever ruled them illegal so they cannot be illegal.

The Israeli settlements are illegal, since they are on occupied land. Any claim otherwise is merely playing with semantics.

Jonathan
'The settlements are not 'illegal'. No judicial Court has ever ruled them illegal so they cannot be illegal.'

It's extremist views like these that are not helpful for those seeking peace.

it seems pretty clear the un, the world court,in fact everyone, is unequivocal that the territories are occupied. moving populations into occupied territory is illegal.....therefore......over to you aristotle i mean jonathan

Well none of you has come up with a court ruling

That proves me right

The settlements are not 'illegal'.

poor jonathan the whole world is wrong jonathan is right shhhh everyone try not to wake him

Jonathan, you didn't prove it either. They are illegal because the transfer of population to occupied territories -- even with financial inducements -- is illegal. No one buys the Israeli foreign ministry's semantics game.

No it is not illegal for population to transfer. Please read the 4th Geneva Convention. It is illegal to FORCE population to transfer. No-one forced Israelis to move to Judea or Samaria.

You really need to check your facts T-Spam. Is this shoddy thinking also characteristic of your professional life at UJIA - and if so, how on earth do you survive there.....

the so-called "settlements" are as illegal as Stanmore, Edgware or Radlett;
Here is some information for telegramsham,stephenb and the other Israel haters to educate themselves about the "settlements" ,

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/settlements-the-myth-exposed

stephenb and the other Jew haters,

1. The settlements are not illegal.
2. The land "occupied"? then answer me this - from whom is the land "occupied"?
3. The settlements blocking peace? Why then did more violence occur when Israel dismantled every single settlement in Gaza?
4. Is continuing Palestinian terrorism a block to peace? Or is it only the fault of the Jews?

Catherine Ashton is a far left wing nutjob, who was treasurer of CND, you know, the commies who pretended to care about nuclear weapons (but only those belonging to democratic liberal democracies). She was treasurer at a time when the Soviet Union, which was running a system of gulags in which millions were murdered, funded CND.

She is a complete non-entity with a third rate mind - no-one had ever heard of her. She is a running joke within the EU itself.

international law accepts that wars will often result in states occupying neighbouring territory and this is not necessarily illegal. The Israeli occupation of the west bank was clearly not unlawful.

However, the law makes clear such an occupation must be temporary and the occupier must make every effort to disengage at the earliest reasonable opportunity. The ongoing occupation is therefore illegal and is demonstrably made so by the settling of large numbers of the occupiers citizens on the occupied lands, and the illegal annexation of parts of the land, ie golan and east jerusalem.

The geneva conventions do not state that it is forced transfers of populations that are illegal but that transfers of populations are illegal

In iother words the settlements reinforce the ilolegality of the occupation and the occupation reinforces the illegality of the sttlements.

The entire world is perfectly clear about all of this

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.

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

Here is the Geneva Convention. It is quite clear that it is FORCED transfers which are illegal.

stephenb - you are in fantasy land. Look at the wording. You can assert your prejudices until you are blue in the face - it doesn't make them true.

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

the occupying power shall not deport ( ie forcibly transfer ) or transfer ( ie by any other means ) its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

And if I had to choose between what jonathan understands by thes words and what the rest of the entire world understands by them...well that would be a tough choice

go back to sleep jonathan you look very tired

Amber I entirely agree that Ashton is a nonentity with a third rate mind ( generous ) but that is irrelevant.

this isen;t an expression of her own thinking but merely a statement of the EU position. She is just reading the script i bet even you could do that

Stephenb

Do you really do not understand the difference between 'deporting' by a government of its citizens and free movement of those citizens?

Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Is that an Israeli MFA interpretation, Jonathan? By transfer, it also means by offering financial and other inducements such as grants and subsidies, something that successive Israeli governments have done to get people to move to the occupied territories.

jonathan, that's just absurd …

Jonathan Hoffman: The settlements are not 'illegal'. No judicial Court has ever ruled them illegal so they cannot be illegal.

no judicial court has ever ruled hamas rockets against sderot illegal, but they clearly are

the eu (and individual jc readers) are perfectly entitled to consider the legal issues and come to a conclusion on them

a court ruling is obviously not necessary!

here's a summary of the arguments for and against illegality of the jewish settlements on the west bank …

for:

the west bank is occupied by israel

therefore the last sentence of article 49 of the fourth geneva convention applies …

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

"deport" is compulsory, therefore "transfer" isn't (i believe this is the view of the eu)

against:

the west bank is "disputed territory", not "occupied", in which case article 49 does not apply

alternatively, if article 49 does apply, then …

"deport" and "transfer" are both compulsory

alternatively, "deport" is compulsory, therefore "transfer" isn't, but "transfer" still requires some action by the state … "transfer" means "move people voluntarily", not merely "allow people to move" (i believe this is the view of the usa … a counter-argument is that israeli susbidies do more than just "allow")

(curiously, it quite obviously doesn't apply to jews from eg the usa or uk moving directly into the settlements … article 49 only applies to israel's own population)

alternatively, jews are entitled to settle in the west bank under articles 6 and 11 of the 1922 "palestine mandate" of the league of nations … that right was continued when the un general assembly (as "trustee" under chapter xii of the un charter) replaced the league, was never repealed, and therefore still exists

finally, here's a couple of useful articles …

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Extras/1007008.aspx (gerald adler 2009)

http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=78 (Jeffrey Helmreich 2003)

Spammo, you fool no-one. Look in the dictionary.

'Deport' and 'transfer' do not mean 'offer tax breaks'.

To vilify Israel you will argue that black is white, it seems.

Jonathan, grow up. I am grateful to happy goldfish. Transfer can also mean moving people by offering them financial inducements. Israel gives its settlers grants rather than mortgages -- IOW money they don't need to pay back -- and subsidises business loans to the extent that these, too, will not have to be paid back.
Also, it is a reasonable expectation on the settlers' part that when Israel does withdraw from the occupied territories, they will get additional funds "in compensation". As a precedent all they have to do is look at what happened when Israel handed back Sinai (the Yamit settlers got compensation) and when it "disengaged" from Gaza (the settlers there were given loadsamoney).
There's an Israeli joke about the former Yamit settler who bought his Netzarim home with the compensation he got for leaving Sinai. He's now bought a house on Moshav Nov, on the Golan Heights, but he's been told that when Israel withdraws from there it'll be "pa'am shlishit, glidah".
I suppose you have to understand Hebrew and Israel to get that one.

tspam, why do you align yourself with outright Jew haters on these blogs? You never utter a word of criticism towards them.

Amber, if you had cared to pay attention I haven't aligned myself with Jew-haters and I have criticised them. I just don't do it in the yah-boo-sucks childish way the self-anointed defenders of Israel here do. It just plays into the hands of the Jew-haters. You'd do well to learn from Happy Goldfish.

In fact, tspam, you don't do it at all, saving all your opporobrium for those who defend Israel.

You need to learn priorities.

"I suppose you have to understand Hebrew"

I do understand Hebrew you arrogant little p***k.

It is you who do not understand English - viz "Deport" and "Transfer". They mean "force" not "tax breaks". The word "forcible" even appears close to them.

You can't get away from the fact that Israeli governments have actively encouraged its citizenry to move to the occupied territories. That's illegal under international law. The governments have done so through subsidies, tax breaks, housing grants, non-repayable business loans, making it easier for Israelis to move to the occupied territories.

Amber, actually I am saving my opprobrium for those who think they are defending Israel but are actually playing into the hands of its enemies. The fact that their responses are so full of hate and vitriol leads me and many others (I suggest JH pops into the UJIA and asks around) to believe that they realise this too but are either too ashamed to admit it or are too stuck in their ways to change.

Is there no limit to this p****'s fantasies? Now he is a judge in a court of international law. The reality is he's an irrelevant little jerk at UJIA who wastes donors' cash by spending all day making vitriolic and ignorant comments on this blog.

Are you a judge in an international court of law, Jonathan? Nope, didn't think so. By the way, this is a free-standing computer at the UJIA where anyone can contribute to the blog. I may be one of several. So that makes your Inquisition a bit tough, don't it Cardinal.

i'm sorry jonathan, but this is rubbish …

Jonathan Hoffman: It is you who do not understand English - viz "Deport" and "Transfer". They mean "force" not "tax breaks". The word "forcible" even appears close to them.

no, "forcible" does not appear close to them …

it appears only in the first paragraph of article 49 ("Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations"), and …

i] if transfers are per se forcible, why is the adjective added?
ii] the only relevant paragraph is the last paragraph (paragraph 6), which was separately written, and in which the meanings of "deport" and "transfer" are clearly different (see commentary at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument )

jonathan, as a matter of interest, do you think that i too do not understand english?

tspam, you should truly be ashamed of how you gun for the defenders of Israel, whilst aligning yourself with the haters. What the hell is wrong with you?

It is quite simple really: Every authority in the world and every government in the world rcognises The West bank as occupied territory. Therefore the settlements are illegal.

And if they are not illegal they are apartheid as they create an unequal division based on ethnicity / religion.

Either way they are wrong as they deny one group of people the right to security, land, movement and prosperity. They are denied simply because of their ethnicity.

There is absolutely nothing edifying about that.

I wish people would give the Orwellian double-speak a rest. It's really really boring.

newsmax, that's a complete non-sequitur …

newsmax: Every authority in the world and every government in the world rcognises The West bank as occupied territory. Therefore the settlements are illegal.

the usa does not regard the settlements as illegal (see my previous post for the reasons)!

as for "apartheid", that's both ridiculous and completely off-topic … suffice it to say that

i] even the eu has never accused them of being apartheid
ii] the settlements are part of the fight against racism , since they enable jews to live in an area completely forbidden to them!

happy !!! you are a no borders person just like me !!! hitherto i never wudda thinked it !!!!

hi stephenb!

nooo, i'm in favour of secure borders …

(after all, "good borders make good neighbours!" )

i just want them to be permeable!

ha ha a one way membrane right an dont you paraphrase robert frost at me young lady

no, a "one way" membrane would only be semi-permeable

btw, i had no idea someone had poemised it … it's a good old legal phrase, praising certainty in the law … see http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/mend-fences.html …

The proverb 'Good fences make good neighbours' is listed by Oxford Dictionary of Quotations as a mid 17th century proverb. Robert Frost gave the proverb a boost in the American consciousness with his 1914 poem Mending Walls

so just how permeable do you want this two way membrane to be ? And who will be charged with the care and maintenanence of the permeability ?

The land comprising Judea and Samaria was awarded to the Jews under the Palestine Mandate of 1922 by the League of Nations and ratified on the setting up of the UN after WWII. Accordingly Israel is occupying land to which it is lawfully entitled.
Furthermore the Geneva Convention does not even apply because the land Israel occupies was never part of land lawfully belonging to a High Contracting Party see. Art. 2. "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."
I trust you will refer to the full terms of the Convention and not just quote passages out of context.