Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Nope, I'm happy to condemn terrorist actions taken by Hezbollah, Hamas, IDF etc - I even made the point that the rockets were actually counter productive.

So, don't single out Israel in this conflict. That's just plain hypocricy.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:For example, I don't agree with Hamas holding one Israeli soldier as hostage just because Israel holds thousands of Palestinians hostage (in 'administrative detention') - but that is because I am against hostage taking on principle.

Another example of Hamas breaking international law...one of many! Do you agree Hamas is breaking international law with the kidnapping of Shalit?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:So, now we agree that Israel should not be above the law - I guess we are close to recognising the fact that Israel is breaking international law by annexing East Jerusalem and imposing discriminatory rules on the non-Jewish inhabitants (particularly when it comes to land/housing)

Yes, Israel treats non-Israeli's different than Israeli's, nothing special about that.

The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem today (25.06.09) repeats its demand that Hamas release Gilad Shalit immediately. The circumstances of Shalit’s capture three years ago and the behavior of his captors clearly indicate that he is legally a hostage. Hostage taking is absolutely prohibited under international humanitarian law, and is defined as a grave breach of the Geneva Convention.

The leadership of Hamas is obligated to release Shalit immediately and unconditionally. Until he is released, those holding him must grant him humane treatment, allow him to be in contact with his family and allow representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit him.

The denial of Shalit’s right to these visits constitutes a blatant violation of international law, and casts doubt over claims that Shalit’s wellbeing has been maintained.

B'Tselem urges the Israeli government to immediately release all administrative detainees or bring them to trial for any criminal offenses they are suspected of having committed. B'Tselem also calls upon the government to direct the military commanders to amend the military orders applying to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pursuant to which administrative detention is made, so that it conforms to international legal standards

shafique wrote:Israel is breaking the law in the occupied areas it controls when it discriminates against the residents of these areas on the basis of their citizenship

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Israel is breaking the law in the occupied areas it controls when it discriminates against the residents of these areas on the basis of their citizenship

Discrimination based on nationality...you must be very confused.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Yes, Israel treats non-Israeli's different than Israeli's, nothing special about that.

shafique wrote:We now seem to agree that Israel should abide by international law - and International law is pretty clear that Israel should not discriminate against the residents of occupied territory in favour of Israeli citizens.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Israel offers citizenship to Arabs in East-Jerusalem and it is accused of discrimination.

I thought it is the Israeli-Arab conflict. Not the Jewish-Muslim conflict.

Code: Select all

Oh, Israel let them live longer than neighboring countries, so they can kill them? Never heard that one before. You are a prime example of somebody who grew up in an environment of hate and envy and you just cannot cope with it. You are a very sick person.

shafique wrote:Not quite. Israel is guilty of discriminating against those who choose not to take the citizenship of the occupying power. As I said, this is illegal under international law - UN resolution 478 states this explicitly.

Berrin wrote:That's right it isn't Israeli-christian conflict as they all unite, but the Israeli-Muslim conflict since palestinian arabs are the muslims themselves..

Berrin wrote:Your remarks over Arabs does not escape my attention..

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Not quite. Israel is guilty of discriminating against those who choose not to take the citizenship of the occupying power. As I said, this is illegal under international law - UN resolution 478 states this explicitly.

Where in the non-binding resulotion does it clearly state that Israel discriminates?

shafique wrote:478 clearly states that the annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal - it is a matter of law.

shafique wrote:You have admitted Israel discriminates in East Jerusalem against those who refuse to take up the citizenship of the occupying power

Flying Dutchman wrote: It is a matter of law that 478 is non-binding.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:You have admitted Israel discriminates in East Jerusalem against those who refuse to take up the citizenship of the occupying power

No, I didn't.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Yes, Israel treats non-Israeli's different than Israeli's, nothing special about that.

shafique wrote:478 actually says that Israel is violating International Law.

What Law nullifies this statement of legal fact? (I wasn't aware that the fact that the UN Security Council is not bound by this legal ruling is a 'matter of law')

shafique wrote:I'm not sure what Israel breaking international law has to do with knowing the difference between nationality and ethnicity?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:I'm not sure what Israel breaking international law has to do with knowing the difference between nationality and ethnicity?

Really? Treating different nationalities different isn't discrimination and isn't breaking international law.

shafique wrote:It is if it is being done in Occupied territory - again, I refer you to UN resolution 478 which states as a matter of Law that East Jerusalem is not part of Israel, and that Israel is breaking international law by acting as if it can legitimately discriminate against the legal residents of East Jerusalem.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:It is if it is being done in Occupied territory - again, I refer you to UN resolution 478 which states as a matter of Law that East Jerusalem is not part of Israel, and that Israel is breaking international law by acting as if it can legitimately discriminate against the legal residents of East Jerusalem.

I have asked you before, but you couldn't deliver. Where does it state that Israel is discriminating in the non-binding 478?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law null and void and required that it be rescinded forthwith while affirming that it was a violation of international law. This resolution called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. The law declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital.

The vote on the resolution, which took place on August 20, 1980, was passed 14-0, with the United States abstaining.

shafique wrote:The discrimination in East Jerusalem is a fact - you've admitted that Israel is indeed discriminating against non-Israeli citizens who legally reside in Occupied East Jerusalem. You seem to think this discrimination is ok, but 478 makes it clear that Israel is acting illegally

shafique wrote:You are the one that has argued that the discrimination based on citizenship is ok

Flying Dutchman wrote:Yes, I have no problem at all with countries treating its own citizens different than non-citizens, duh. 478 is non-binding.

shafique wrote:478 states that Israel is breaking international law - fact (which you haven't/can't dispute).

The Palestinians never had sovereignty over the West Bank nor east Jerusalem and Justice Schwebel
concluded that since Jordan, the prior holder of these territories had seized that territory unlawfully in 1948,
Israel which subsequently took that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense in 1967, has better title to it.
Jordan's illegal annexation of the West bank and east Jerusalem in 1948 was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan and
Jordan now makes no claim to it..

In terms of international law, between 1948 and 1967 this territory was terra nullius,
or "land belonging to no one" over which sovereignty may be acquired through occupation.

It is highly relevant that the Oslo Accords do not require any freeze of building activity
and even the road map which was never formally ratified, speaks only of dismantling "outposts" erected since March 2001,
a far cry from Gilo, that has been a residential suburb of Jerusalem since 1971.

shafique wrote:Therefore the discrimination in East Jerusalem that you have 'no problem' with

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:478 states that Israel is breaking international law - fact (which you haven't/can't dispute).

And you cannot dispute it is non-binding, so it doesn't have nay relevance in the real world.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Do you agree that "the armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them"?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Therefore the discrimination in East Jerusalem that you have 'no problem' with

Difference in law based on nationality is not discrimination. Calling it discrimination is just beyond ridiculous.

shafique wrote:I totally agree that land beyond the 1947 borders drawn up by the UN do not constitute the country of Israel. The land Israel captured in 1948 and was allowed to keep, did become part of Israel./quote]

Lets not forgot Israel captured this land after Arab aggression, trying to annihilate Israel. I see you are following the phased plan for the destruction of Israel. First Israel should retreat to the 1967 armictice lines and then accept the partition plan. That is a choice for war not peace.

shafique wrote:The land beyond the 1948/9 armistice lines are categorically not Israeli land, as clarified and verified by UN and International Court rulings.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:I totally agree that land beyond the 1947 borders drawn up by the UN do not constitute the country of Israel. The land Israel captured in 1948 and was allowed to keep, did become part of Israel./quote]

Lets not forgot Israel captured this land after Arab aggression, trying to annihilate Israel. I see you are following the phased plan for the destruction of Israel. First Israel should retreat to the 1967 armictice lines and then accept the partition plan. That is a choice for war not peace.

shafique wrote:The land beyond the 1948/9 armistice lines are categorically not Israeli land, as clarified and verified by UN and International Court rulings.

I agree, the final status should be negiotated as part of a peace deal. At the moment the PA doesn't want to join the negotiation table. Abbas overplayed his hand and is captive now of his own words. Anyways, a Pali state is not something to look forward to. Expect gangsta and thug rule.

And yes differentiation based on nationality is very normal. Death penalties based on ethinicy is not, like a death penalty for selling land to jews.

The European Union said it was "dismayed" by the announcement.

"Settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law," it said.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Yes, annexing is an unilatral action that is unlawfull I think.

Policy of discrimination in planning, building and land expropriation

The planning policy in East Jerusalem since its annexation in 1967 is affected by political considerations and infected by systematic discrimination against the Palestinians living there. While extensive building and enormous budget allocations have been the rule in Jewish neighborhoods, the Israeli government has choked development and building for the Palestinian population.

In June 1967, Israel annexed 70,500 dunams [4 dunams = 1 acre] of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and incorporated them within Jerusalem’s borders. From this annexed territory, Israel has expropriated about one-third of the annexed territory – 24,000 dunams – most of it privately-owned Arab property. Israel used this expropriated land for residential construction. By the end of 2001, 46,978 housing units had been built for Jews on this land, but not one unit for Palestinians who constitute one-third of the city’s population.

At the same time, Israel choked construction in Palestinian neighborhoods and restricted new construction. Immediately upon annexation of East Jerusalem, and contrary to its actions in the rest of the West Bank, the Jordanian outline plans were nullified, thus creating a planning void that took a long time to fill. In the first decade following annexation, construction was only allowed ad hoc in a few areas in East Jerusalem.
Much land surrounding Palestinian villages and neighborhoods was expropriated to build Jewish neighborhoods, leaving no room for Palestinian construction. The Jerusalem Municipality did not establish outline plans for the Palestinian areas. The few plans that were approved were primarily intended to prevent new construction by declaring broad expanses of land as “green areas,” restricting the building percentages on the lots, and setting narrow borders.

In the early 1980s, the Jerusalem Municipality began to prepare outline plans for all the Palestinian neighborhoods. Most of the plans are complete, and others are in the process of planning and approval. The most conspicuous feature of these outline plans is the vast amount (some 40 percent) of area that is designated as “open landscape areas,” on which building is forbidden. In the plans that were approved prior to the end of 1999, only some 5,100 dunams (constituting 11 percent of the land in East Jerusalem, after the expropriation of 24,000 dunams mentioned above) were available for construction for the Palestinian population. As is the case with the demarcation plans existing in the West Bank, construction is allowed primarily in built-up areas.

The consequences of this policy are evident in Palestinian neighborhoods. For example, at the end of 2002, housing density in Arab neighborhoods was almost twice that of Jewish neighborhoods, 11.9 square meters per person compared to 23.8 square meters per person. The existing situation has forced many Palestinians to build homes without first obtaining a building permit. The Jerusalem Municipality enforces the building laws on Palestinians much more stringently than on the Jewish population, even though the number of violations is much higher in the Jewish neighborhoods.