Are Israeli settlements illegal?

Check Also

From Israel: We Cannot Continue This Way!!

This posting will be brief. I had hoped to write next when a government had …


  1. I’m going to be just as black and white on this as Alexander Gillespie.

    Of course Jews choosing to live beyond the 1949 armistice lines and especially in Jerusalem are NOT illegal.

    The notion that the Geneva Conventions apply to deem this illegal is not just wrong. It is abhorrent.

    That this legal academic overlooks everything in the world between NZ and Israel to find some Jews to declare as ” illegal ” says something very unsavoury about him and his university and law school. They are trying to strangle the very notion of the rule of law.

    On the other hand murder, incitement to murder and supporting and encouraging terrorism that the PA does as routine business is illegal. That there are law academics that don’t believe that this is even worth mentioning stinks of something rotten at the core of our institutions.

    Something dangerous.

    • Leon Poddebsky

      They are trying to strangle the notion of the rule of law only when it applies to Israel.
      They would have a bit of a problem doing it to Jews in the host countries ( though that might change ,too), so they vent their hatred against the Jewish nation-state.

  2. The author states:
    “According to Gillespie, the Israeli settlements are on “territory which they acquired by military force in 1967 and never returned”.

    Gillespie ignores the fact that in 1967 the PLO made no claim to regional sovereignty over the “West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” (Article 24 PLO Charter). That article was simply dropped in 1968 – unaccompanied by any claim to sovereignty by the PLO

    If it was to be returned to anyone it was to Jordan – whose occupation had only been recognised by Britain and Pakistan. It was Jordan that Israel negotiated with on the future of the West Bank until 1987.

    In 1988 Jordan finally severed all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank. Until then West Bank Arabs had beeen Jordanian citizens.

    So much for the spurious claim by the “Palestinians” to demand a separate state there now.

    The only solution that can now possibly work is completing the 1922 “two-state solution” – the territorial subdivision of the last remaining 5% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate already living in peace and security alongside each other.

    Professor Gillespie in his blind rush to judgement is probably unaware of these salient facts.

    He has probably been reading too much PLO propaganda.

    When a Law Professor only looks at half the facts – many of them fake and contrived by propagandists – his legal opinion is likely to not be worth the paper it is written on.

    • Leon Poddebsky

      Should a professor who is so, shall we say, “negligent,” be entitled to warm a chair at taxpayers’ expense?

  3. The argument “everybody says so” is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum (The Bandwagon Fallacy.) The notion that a proposition’s veracity is determined by the number of people who believe it.
    A notable example is the Geocentric Theory of the Universe disproven by Galileo; although he spent the last years of his life under house arrest for asserting that the Earth rotated around the Sun and not vice versa.
    That the Geocentric Theory was false, is further confirmed in that its proponents needed to resort to argumentum ad bacculum (a proposition is true because I am stronger than you and can therefore enforce my opinion on you.)

    This is exactly the situation faced by Israel today. Many people have climbed aboard the Bandwagon of Palestinianism (built on multiple falsehoods) and they now attempt to force this false proposition on us; with their cudgels (bacculae.)

    Our history has shown that every manifestation of the Memshelet Zadon rapidly collapses under it own putrescent weight. Resulting from the accumulation of the falsehoods on which it rests. From Pharoah to Perfidious Albion this pattern has repeated in every age. The bloody implosion of the Islamic Imperial project is now playing out before our very eyes. The Western Democracies now teeter on that same brink.

  4. You people don’t seem to know much about international law. UN resolutions are very very important in determining what the law is. So any debate about the legality of the settlements was ended with resolution 2334. That resolution does more than provide the SC’s interpretation of the legality. It essentially has the effect of actually writing law and making it illegal because when interpreting international law, UN resolutions carry a lot of weight. In summart, Gillespie is correct. No matter if you want to keep your heads in the sand

    • In answer to C …

      “You people don’t seem to know much about international law. UN resolutions are very very important in determining what the law is. So any debate about the legality of the settlements was ended with resolution 2334”


      UN Resolution 2334 was not adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and is not legally binding.

      Article 80 of the UN charter laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in Judaea and Samaria, western Palestine, a 10,000 square mile area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day and it is enshrined and protected by international law.

    • CB
      I don’t have very much regard for the opinions of those who comment anonymously, begin with “You People” (grossly offensive and implicating all Jews as bearing responsibility) and then go on to make claims without substantiating the basis on which they are made.

      Security Council Resolution 2334 is illegal since it was passed by the Security Council in violation of the UN Charter – specifically article 80. The Security Council has no power to act outside the Charter.

      Indeed I have published an article in which I state:
      “The questionable legality of Resolution 2334 needs to be urgently resolved by the Security Council itself seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) under article 96(a) of the United Nations Charter.”

      Law is not made by unilateral declarations by the Security Council without any proper consideration of the applicable law.

      In this instance the Security Council obviously gave no consideration to the legal ramifications of article 80 of the UN Charter.

      Until the Security Council gets at least an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice – Resolution 2334 remains a worthless piece of paper.

      Indeed subsequent events in Paris where 12 of the 15 members of the Security Council resiled from parts of Resolution 2334 they had passed just three weeks earlier indicate that Resolution 2334 is going to have a very controversial life.

      • Leon Poddebsky

        The Security Council, like many governments, such as that of New Zealand and even the USA. demonstrates utter disdain for international law when that law fairly finds for Israel.
        A British official during the Mandate era put it succinctly: ” If we have to offend either the Arabs or the Jews, let us offend the Jews.”

    • Jews Down Under

      You are very welcome to post on Jews Down Under and engage in discussion, however posting comments like **YOU PEOPLE**, is antisemitism and that is unacceptable.

      • Actually, in saying “you people” I was referring simply to the people who had commented on this forum and written the article. It had zero connotations of which religion or ethnicity those people had.. So.. calm down a little please.

        As for your responses, they did not address the central tenant of my post, which is a reality that no-one on this forum seems willing to accept.

        The fact is that SC resolutions are very influential in defining International Law, and resolution 2334 is influential enough to end all debate on the matter of whether settlements are illegal.

        The claim that resolution 2334 itself “illegal” is quite amazing. Really clutching at straws there. Illegal?? Really? wow. Sure you are not just being biased here?

        And what on earth is a “unilateral” decision of the Security Council?
        How is a 13-0 vote unilateral? It is an international forum. How is an international consensus unilateral?

        Aren’t settlements unilateral? Who other than Israel agreed to them? Were they agreed to by negotiation? No. they are unilaterally made by Israel.

        Do you understand now what the word unilateral means?

        • Leon Poddebsky

          Have you ever studied the 1922 Mandate for ‘Palestine” [ my quotation marks] which was endorsed unanimously by the Council of The League of Nations? OR the US Congress’ endorsement thereof? Or President Wilson’s endorsement ?
          Have you studied the 1919 agreement between the Emir Feisal and the Zionist Organisation, where the leader of the Arab nation fully and warmly endorses Zionism’s aims and objectives?
          Or Chapter 80 of the UN Charter?
          Or UNSC 242?

          It’s more convenient to offend the Jews rather than the Arabs.
          Fortunately people who have your curious slant, even the Europeans ,will not determine Israel’s history, just as they were unable to frustrate its reconstitution in 1948.

          By the way your patronising tone makes you appear even more ridiculous than the actual content of your contribution.
          The height of comic irony occurs when an ignoramus condescends.

          • Yes, I know those mandates etc. It just does not support the claim that UNSC 2334 is illegal, and when all the edicts are read together including the Geneva convention it is clear that the UNSC 2334 really puts to bed any notion that the settlements are legal. The reading of UNSC 242 as being proof that settlements are legal is just not valid, in light of how 2334 refers to that earlier resolution

            What is your response to the “unilateral” statements?

          • CB

            I repeat:

            Resolution 2334 is illegal because:
            1. Article 80 of the UN Charter preserves the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in East Jerusalem, Gaza, Judea and and Samaria (West Bank) pursuant to the1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
            2. Resolution 2334 violates article 80 because it seeks to deny the rights preserved by article 80.
            3. The UN Security Council cannot act in contravention of the UN Charter.

            If you want to dispute my claim then state the specific facts or opinions on which you rely.

            Your only answer so far has been:
            “The claim that resolution 2334 itself “illegal” is quite amazing. Really clutching at straws there. Illegal?? Really? wow. Sure you are not just being biased here?”

            That generalised rubbish is not good enough – and indeed insulting.

            What bias are you referring to? Is it that I am Jewish? Don’t you think Jews can hold opinions without their views being summarily dismissed as being biased?

            I have stated my above reasons to justify my claim that Resolution 2334 is illegal.

            Now you must state your reasons why you disagree and we can then have a reasoned discussion.

            In simple terms – put up or shut up.

    • Leon Poddebsky

      “We people” are actually brilliant experts in international law.
      One of “Our people,” Professor Julius Stone, long ago refuted the myth of illegality.
      Another of our people, Justice Lauterpacht of the International Court of Justice, a legal “icon,” did likewise.
      Eugene Rostow, one “of ours”, was yet another Jew who knew the law.
      Arthur Goldberg [ well, with a name like that…] the USA’s United Nations delegate expounded on the legality of the Jewish claims.
      We could fill entire volumes of brilliantly incisive, profound, compelling legal arguments, buttressed by sources, precedents, name it,that “you people” have engraved in solid rock, reaffirming the Jewish People’s inalienable legal right to live anywhere in The Land of Israel.
      Why any person of any degree of mental capacity, who lives in New Zealand, many thousands of kilometres from microscopic Israel would invest so much passion and faux law in his endeavours to show that “you people” are just a gang of outlaws is not a mystery. “You people” know the reason.
      Oh, by the way, when are the Maori People going to get their indigenous sovereignty back?

      • Well I was not referring to those particular people, I was referring to the people on this forum when I said “you people”. It had no other connotations.

        And none of those opinions you cite took into account this new S.C. resolution, which everyone who knows anything about international law realizes is a game changer.

        Why do you think Netanyahu was so upset if it was meaningless and settlements are legal and remain illegal??

        • Leon Poddebsky

          Do you do stand up comedy too?

        • Leon Poddebsky

          C.B., you are just plain wrong.
          Go on, admit it.

        • Leon Poddebsky

          Netanyahu and Jews generally were “upset” because the resolution is a flagrant violation of The Mandate for ‘Palestine’ 1922.
          It is a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and a number of other acts of law and convention.
          The passage of the resolution illustrates the contempt which the supporting governments have for the Jewish People.

          Look, in 1938-39,non-Jewish governments had the same sort of contempt for the non-Jewish state of Czechoslovakia, so do you think that the little matter of repudiating established law endorsing Jewish rights in Judea and Samaria would bother those governments very much?

          The world runs on realpolitik.
          A distinguished British gentleman once said during the Mandate era, ” If we have to offend the Arabs or the Jews, let us offend the Jews.”

        • CB…Netanyahu was upset because the Arabs see UNSC resolution 2334 as a way for them to have a ‘state’ without having to agree to any terms.

          Mahmoud Abbas wants two states. One for Arabs, which he has already said will be Jew free. One for Jews and Arabs. The hope for the latter is that eventually the Arabs will out breed the Jews and therefor he will be his ‘one state solution which we all know he wants.

      • Here is a good overview of the legal ramifications of SC resolution 2334, for those who wish to remove their heads from the sand:

        best regards

        • Leon Poddebsky

          Whose assessment is it that it is “good”?

        • Hi C.B. Will you assist me…a little? The Potsdam Centre for Human Rights…and Andreas Zimmermann. What would be the political leaning of this gentleman, and his organisation.

          Having read a number of his articles…since opening your offered Webpage, I can’t exactly get a handle on where he is coming from…without being disparaging towards him.

          I am perhaps a little biased….whenever I see that term “Human Rights”…..more so when linked to Academics. (No, I am not trying to sucker you…just genuinely interested)

          • Hi Graham.

            The people claiming settlements are legal such as those on this website. What would be the political leanings of these people?

            Can you point me to a single unbiased scholar that supports the position that the settlements are legal, having regard for UNSC resolution 2334. Please. Just show me one.

          • G’morning C.B. No mate, you can’t tar everyone with the same feathers…scholars or otherwise. I have come across people on this Webpage; who in my opinion, range in political embrace from the left through to the right.

            I believe your reply to me has taken the opportunity to further expand, and reinforce your mind set as to the ‘illegality’ of Israel’s development of Settlements….when all I was looking to establish was a little clearer understanding of the political engine that drives Andreas Zimmermann and his Potsdam Centre, …if you knew such.

            To me, he is a ‘newy’…though widely diverging in subject matter commentary. I stress…’to me’. The gentleman could have been around for yonks for all I know.

            Now C.B. Where would you slot me among ‘those people’ of this ‘website’. To me, the UN and/or Resolution 2334, is of no relevance…as I believe Israel should equally think about it.

            No more than toady balderdash to justify the existence, and relevance of the re-invented Marxists of this time and era.

            I never allow my thought capacity to be bogged down with ‘Two State Solutions’…or any Solution for that matter, that involves as much as a thimble full of Islamic consideration.

            You C.B., like me…. know that the like of Abraham and Joshua were kicking gibbers around the hills of Samaria and Judea…. two to three thousand years before old Mohammad was out of diapers….or even learnt to ride his first camel.

            Unbroken succession, and possession, is nine tenths of the law…any law…including that of the legal doyens of Brussels and New York. Case closed C.B. Pointless debating the issue further…eh!?

            The unfortunate aspect of this whole saga, is that the Israeli Government has spent the past 65 odd years cowtowing to, and bending over backwards to appease a strain of humanity that is mired in savagery, and the teachings of one very obnoxious Book.

            Yep C.B….In the very final analysis, that is what it comes down to. There’s is only one solution for a peaceful conclusion/solution within the borders of Israel…total repatriation of that Book and it’s devotees to a ME region they can legally identify with….somewhere where slaughter, savagery and mayhem are the order of every day life.

            I know that will never happen…but we can live in hope C.B.

            (Oh C.B….should you now think otherwise of me ..I am pretty much a non subscriber to organised religion, and apolitic…just more of a character who understands, and lives by civilised human values…)

            You need to petition the UN to live the same way…as NO GOOD is ever going to come of that ‘Organisation’ ……as they continue on their ‘merry way’.) They might just get trumped even…!

  5. Leon Poddebsky

    When politicians want to mislead public opinion they often resort to the catchcry, “Illegal!”
    The Security Council consists of the representatives of politicians of states that wish to intimidate Israel into amputating additional tracts of its legitimate entitlement under the bedrock determination of international law known as the 1922 Mandate for “Palestine.” [ my inverted commas.]
    That determination was re-endorsed by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter, and subsequently Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
    The Oslo Accords in no way prejudice Israel’s legal entitlements in Judea and Samaria.

    The catchcry, “Illegal”, is the 20th and 21st centuries’ equivalent of so many other catchcries of the past regarding the Jewish People: ” Deicides!”, ” Communists,” ” Capitalists!”, ” Religious fanatics!,” Immoral atheists!” etc etc
    There’s an extensive menu from which over the millennia the wicked, the immoral, the unjust have selected and used as weapons in the unending war against the Jews.

    Some Jews, too, out of ignorance or a desire to find favour in the eyes of host societies,[ and also people who opportunistically parade their status of “half-Jews,” ] join the chorus.

    • What’s a “half-Jew”…..just asking.

      • Leon Poddebsky


        You noticed no doubt that I placed the term inside inverted commas.

        • No…just a genuine inquiry…Not much than 38 hours ago, I pulled into Penn Station New York…from Trump’s Inauguration in Washington, enroute to JFK Airport, and met in the Rail Station’s main concourse, a collective group of Muslim/Jewish Women – in costume with an abundant number of emblematic icons…obviously headed to a protest somewhere, with placard and banners crying out …”Trump…Half Jew…Half Fascist”.

          I made a comment to them…not encouraging…and received a mouth full. Such is life, and was expected. I was sitting at Brisbane Airport this afternoon reading Shirlee’s
          Webpage…and noticed the expression again. I have heard it a few times of late…and it came as a bit of a shock to me – from women carrying or displaying the Star of David in some form.

          It’s a new one to me….prompting my inquiry. I did not mean to cause offence.

          • Leon Poddebsky


            You did not cause offence. I assumed that the meaning of the term is well known.
            The term “half Jew” is usually meant to convey that only one parent is Jewish.
            The protesters, however, whom you encountered did not mean that. Neither of Mr Trump’s parents was a Jew.
            What they meant was that Mr Trump’s nature is composed of two evils: one is Jewish, and the other, Fascist.
            These sorts of people project their own fascism onto others, hence they reject the democratic process, believing that they alone have the right to be the government; and hence they consider “Jew” to be a term of opprobrium.

        • Leon, I haven’t heard that term before either.

  6. @Leon…Thank you. Yes, it is now clear to me that they are trying to paint the word Jew….or half Jew, as sinister. Just seemed a little lame brained to myself….Just left me puzzled.

    Fascist…well that is cat call in every hater’s tool box. (Heck…at times I have to check in the mirror to see if I have grown a toothbrush moustache…for the number of times I have been called a Fascist…then again I’m sometimes wear the tag of Bolshie). Again thank you for the explanation.

  7. My problem lies with those who want to make something complex simple in order to call it “illegal”. The problem lies in stripping away context. Israel didn’t simply take the land in 1967, it retook it, after it was taken from Israel in 1948 and illegally occupied by Jordan. So my question has to be this. Germany took France in WW2. Is it now “illegal” for France to ever take its territory back from Germany? That is what they are saying about Israel.

  8. You mean they want a state without having to agree on any terms in the same way that Israel wants Settlements without having to agree on terms?

    And when did I ever say I supported a world without Israel?? I strongly support Israels existence but oppose the Settlements. Get it???

    • Leon Poddebsky

      Judea, Samaria, the Gaza Strip are all legitimate, legal Jewish / Israeli entitlements.
      In the decades following their international recognition as such, international politics, not law or justice, have gnawed away at those entitlements.
      That gnawing away is an indelible blot on Western civilisation, the same civilisation that already bore the indelible blot of the Holocaust.
      The current anti-Zionist wave is part of the continuum that began in antiquity.
      The myth of illegality is the most recent driving force of that wave.

      • I dont know where you have lived your whole life, Leon Poddebsky. But where I live, laws are changing all the time. International Law, as of today, 2017, says that the Settlements are illegal. Just because David Singer quotes a biased misinterpretation of Charter 40, does not make them legal in 2017.

        Here is just one example line from the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2004, when petitioned about the wall through East Jerusalem. “Recalling that the Security Council described Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law.”

        Did they mention there that all this was happening within the region that was given to Israel in the legitimate, legal Jewish / Israeli entitlements including Judea, Samaria, the Gaza Strip by Article 80 of the UN Charter? I really cannot see where they say that.

        Notice as well that they said “Recalling that the Security Council described…” in other words the ICJ considers the resolutions of the SC as helping define what the current laws are, not just interpret what they are. The ICJ interprets law. The SC helps write it. Just like governments write laws and courts interpret them.

        So, there really was no doubt that the settlements were illegal in 2004, but some people kept arguing that they were legal. After the 2016 resolution, those arguments are now lost.

        • You are enjoying this C.B. Used to do the same thing myself…find a dedicated web based grouping of warm fuzzy leftists, slip in, hurl a few incindary comments around…and then sit back and enjoy the tit for tat games.

          Academic/Legalistic argument aside’s Jew Land….from the River to the Sea…(and much further east actually). What are the ‘International Comunity’ ever going to do C.B….beyond talk fest huffing and puffing…send in the New Zealand and Sengal Navies….hit the beaches running…hang ’em high at the Hague….Sanction them…oh they have tried that with BDS.

          Sorry C.B….the very real reality is that you, along with the ‘International Community’ are talking to cool your teeth. Push comes to shove, even that ‘International Community’ will fall apart at the seams….far too many part time Jew lovers embedded within their midst.

          All that needs to happen C.B. is for Netanyahu and his Government to okay many more more thousands of Settlement dwellings within the borders of Israel…in lieu of the current batch of 500 for East Jerusalem, and 2500 for Judea and Smaria….and hunt…repatriate, every last Camel rider from within it’s Home Land borders.

          Read up on Dr. Sherman…. from the Israeli Strategy Centre, for a clear understanding of what needs to be effected to put the wrong done to Jews and Israel right. He’s a scholar/academic C.B… would like him.

          Times lines C.B…..Israel is zig zagged with them….it’s like a kid’s school yard hopscotch course.

          Those damn pesky Jews eh C.B…..just been here forever eh mate?

    • CB. TERMS????

      In 2000, Camp David offered Arabs a sovereign state with shared control of Jerusalem and billions of dollars in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and returned to launch the deadly terror war known as the Second Intifada.

      IN 2008 Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas a peace agreement that would have guaranteed a Palestinian state in virtually all the West Bank, Gaza, and part of Jerusalem. Once again, the Palestinians turned down the offer.

      Since that time Israel has released murderers and terrorists from gaol as a precondition to holding talks. Funnily enough Abu Mazen hasn’t come to the table.

      Only a few months ago the snake-in-the-grass John Kerry tried to get him to come to the table and he wouldn’t.

      PM Netanyahu is on public record asking him to meet.

      Still waiting. One request of many.

      • Multiple choice question.

        Which of the following is unilateral

        A) building settlements by Israel against the will of the Palestinians and indeed against the expressed will of the whole International community who have again re-iterated that these settlements are illegal

        B) a 13-0 international vote of the security council, which does not include Palestine as a member and that condemns violence, and states that Israel has the right to exist but that the settlements are illegal,

        which is unilateral, in your understanding of that word?

        If Netanyahu thinks the issues should be addressed through negotiation, as he says in words, why is he using Israels superior force to act build settlements without any negotiation? I do not recall any negotiations where the Settlements were agreed upon.

        Actions speak louder than words.

        I know I will get responses where no one actually faces up to these points and instead start quoting how Israel gave Palestine the opportunity previously but they did not take it.. If that is the position of Israel.. then why not say it?? “We no longer want to negotiate because it did not work so now we act unilaterally.” At least that would be honest, with actions matching words.

        You cant have it both ways. “we want you to negotiate but we are taking what we want without negotiating for it”

        I wonder how many here will vote B) above.

        • You are perpetrating a falsehood in claiming Israel is building settlements unilaterally.

          Israel is acting in conformity with the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap negotiating framework, Israel’s reservations made to the Roadmap and America’s assurances to address those reservations.

          Israel froze settlements for 9 months from 25 November 2009.

          The PLO now demands a further freeze before it resumes negotiations. Israel has refused but is prepared to negotiate without preconditions.

          If the PLO had any sense they would return to the negotiating table and raise the question of a further freeze there.

          Whilst Abbas tap dances and runs off to various UN agencies and turning his back on negotiations Israel will continue to build as the need arises.

          Israel does not need Abbas’s permission to build in Area “C” – just as Abbas does not need Israel’s permission to build in Areas “A” and “B”.

          If you really wanted to be believed as being fair and even handed you would also be claiming that the PLO is building unilaterally in Areas “A” and “B”. Any reason for your silence?

        • Israel does not need permission from anyone, including the Arabs, to build on land where they are legally entitled to.

          The Israeli housing and communities in Judaea and Samaria constitute less than 5% of the land in area C, that BTW includes roads.

          Should the Arabs ever come to the table to ‘talk’ peace’ then this land be swapped for other land.

          • I agree, Israel does not need permission to build on land where they are legally entitled. the problem is that they are building on land where they are not legally entitled. And it does not matter if a few people distort the facts and kid themselves that what is clearly illegal is legal

          • Jews Down Under

            What don’t you get?

            ‘There’s none so blind as those who will not see.’

            The Arabs never accepted the land in 1948. When Israel proclaimed statehood, they should have done so too.

            But no, instead choose to go to war rather than accept the UN’s decision to partition Palestine between its Jewish and Arab populations.

            5 Arab nations attacked the fledgling State of Israel, and lost, with Jordan and Egypt stealing the land intended for their Arab brothers.

            So Jordan and Egypt, according to your way of thinking, illegally occupied the land earmarked for their brothers.
            Note here I say earmarked. That means the land belonged to no one i.e. unclaimed Mandate land.

            So where was the outcry?

            Oh that’s OK, it was Arabs who ‘stole’ the land. Never mind the fact that Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city and Jordan almost destroyed the entire Jewish section of the Old City. Every synagogue destroyed. The Mount of Olives, a 3,000 year of cemetery desecrated. Graves were dug up to build an hotel and a road. Headstones used as steps and the graves used as lavatories. Every Jewish Community, thousands of years old in Judaea and Samaria, destroyed.

            When Israel took all of Judaea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem in the Six Day War of 1967, she was only moving into unclaimed Mandate land. Israel cannot be an occupier in land that according to international law belonged to her in the first place.

        • CB – “Palestinian”? “Palestonian will. . .” What’s a “Palestinian”? There are Palestinianists. Advocates of the doctrine of Palestinianism. Which asserts that the Potemkin Village propaganda ploy of (sic) “Palestine” must be accorded more respect than other made-up places such as Narnia, Mordor, Neverland, or Westros.

          At present this fiction exists in two manifestations that are at war with one another. One a Theocratic Kleptocracy and the other a Neopatrimonialist (secular/tribal) Kleptocracy.

          Even after 70+ years on the international dole, neither is even a viable proto-state. Nor do they show the slightest promise of becoming anything other than another failed Arab state. Even, were they to realize their genocidal wet dreams of annihilating the only Jewish state on the planet; and returning the remaining Jews to third class status; under their religiously mandated Apartheid system of Dhimmitude.

          Which of these is the real (sic)”Palestine”?

          The Palestinianists themselves don’t believe the tripe they get useful idiots to regurgitate when framing high-sounding tendentious argument.

          [] – “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.”

          [ scroll to Time Index 1:34] – Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad (Al-Hekma TV (Egypt) – March 23, 2012: “Half of the Palestinians Are Egyptians and the Other Half Are Saudis”

          [] Abbas: “the relationship between Jordan and Palestine is the relationship of one nation living in two states.”

          See also – [] – Collected Palestinianist statements denying the existence of a (sic)”Palestinian” national identity distinct from that of other Arabs (incl by Arafat)

          We also see this in the founding documents of Palestinianism.

          Article 1 of The Palestinian National Charter states: ” . . . the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”
          [] There is no Palestinian identity separate from that of other Arabs.

          The Hamas are strict constructionist Islamists; and, as such, do not recognize the kuffar concept of Nation State. One is either a part of the Dar-al-Islam (the realm of peace) or, the Dar-al-Harb (the realm of war.) This they make explicit in their founding document the “Hamas Covenant” in Article 11: ” The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day.” []

          BTW – This “consecration” is the result of armed aggression (in 637 CE), at the beginning of the Arab Imperial Project; [ ] and passed from one Caliph to another by war; and was rendered moot by the dissolution of the non-Arab Ottoman Caliphate as a result of WWI. (see the various references to the League of Nations Mandate, Article 80 of the UN Charter above. You might also fruitfully peruse The San Remo Resolution of 1920 and the 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine [] – Actual International Law. By the UN Charter neither the UNSC nor the UNGA are legislatures empowered to make International Law.)

          There are also cultural and linguistic markers which demonstrate that the soi-disant ‘Palestinians’ are merely remnants of this now putrescent Arab Imperial Project.

          All of these Arab’s family/clan names, refer to somewhere else; and not the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.[].

          The most blatant example Palestinianist invention being Abbas’ heir apparent Saeb Erakat [].

          Although, Fatah Revolutionary Council member Dimitri Diliani runs a close second. His assertion that the Arabs of (sic)”Palestine” are descended from the Jebusites; is beyond absurd. The only confirmed mention of the Jebusites is in the Hebrew Bible. That’s the only source that says that Jebusites lived around Jerusalem.

          We know the Boers and the British are invader/occupier/colonialists in South Africa because neither of their languages have the glottal and pharyngeal constrictive (‘Click’) phonemes found in all the actual indigenous languages of that region. []

          Arabic lacks the labial plosive (‘P’) phoneme. This means that these Arabs are unable to pronounce the name, they claim is that of their “Native Homeland: in their “Native Language”.

          There is not even a consistent ‘Palestinian Arab’ dialect. Arabs in Bethlehem speak differently than Arabs in Hebron (even though they live only 30 kilometers apart). One uses a G sound (the voiced velar stop) and the other a K sound (the unvoiced velar stop)when saying the same word. The difference between thing and think.

          The word ‘Palestine’ has no root, or meaning, in Arabic. It is a loan word from the British Mandate period. The immediately previous “sovereign” (whose claim also rests on conquest) the Ottomans did not use the term []

          [continued below]

          • [continued from above to CB “What Palestinians”?]

            Apart from the legal, cultural and linguistic markers that demonstrate Palestinianism’s claim of indigenous status for the Arab conquistador remnant; to be nothing more than malevolent fiction (the false a priori assumption on which your fraudulent argument rests); the evidence for the indigenous status of the Jews is overwhelming.

            The 13th Cent BCE Merneptah Stele []

            The archaeological evidence for the historicity of Saul, David and Solomon

            This bit of braggadocio by Aram-Damascene king Hazael from about 830 BCE

            The mention of King Hezekaiah (who figures prominently in the Bible) in the annals of Sennacherib of Assyria []

            An impression of Hezekaiah’s royal seal was recently found in situ in an archeaologial excavation in Jerusalem.

            Then there is the encounter with Alexander III of Macedon (356 BCE – 323 BCE), commonly known as Alexander the Great. As reported by both Josephus in his “Antiquities of the Jews”[ Chapter 8 Paragraph 5] and independently by Livy []

            Then there Josephus’ account of “The Jewish War” against Rome [] in which he was a participant.

            Other Archaeological evidence includes this Byzantine era gold hoard recently found in Jerusalem []

            Moving into the mid 16th Century CE we have this atlas and gazeteer by Adrian Reland (1676-1718)

            A chronology of continuous Jewish settlement in the land from 1517 to the present can be found here []


            Most of the texts of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” [] are legible to readers of modern Israeli Hebrew in he same way that Shakespeare’s First Folio are legible to modern English speakers. The balance are in paleo-Hebrew whose connection with modern Hebrew is incontrovertible. Not to mention that the texts themselves are identical with their modern Jewish and Christian iterations.

            Unlike the Muslim calendar, which follows the cycles of the moon and whose holidays, therefore, float through the solar year in a 33 year cycle, it is carefully calibrated and constantly adjusted to remain synchronized with the planting and harvest seasons in Israel regardless of when those seasons occur in the Diaspora. In the Diaspora certain holidays are celebrated on two consecutive days to insure that those celebrations occur “during the specified day” in Israel. These holidays are only observed for one day in Israel.

            The central act of all Jewish worship is the reading of sections of the Torah (with supplementary reading from the Prophets) in a cycle that completes the reading of the text in either one or three years. These texts speak exhaustively of the Jewish connection to the land. The readings are bracketed by prayers, each one of which makes mention of our desire to return to the land and the rebuilding of Zion and Jerusalem. Similar prayers are a prominent feature of every life-cycle event and holiday celebration. The Passover Seder concludes with “Next Year in Jerusalem”

            So please, CB; spare us any more of your BS about “Palestinians”

  9. Leon Poddebsky

    Any one who asserts that Jewish scholars must be biased because of their Jewishness opens himself up to the retort that non-Jewish scholars must be biased because of their non-Jewishness.
    Both assertions are of equal merit.
    And I maintain this despite my awareness that Western civilisation has a history of antisemitism which persists to this day.
    The toleration of the nefarious activities of the so-called “Peace Centre” at The University of Sydney exemplifies this.
    That antisemites disingenuously complain that criticism of those activities amounts to “stifling freedom of speech” is itself evidence of their pathology as, e.g., the stifling of Colonel Kemp dramatically illustrates.

    • Leon. I did not assert that. I responded to someone who said that a humans rights lawyer must be biased. And I did not say Jewish scholars must be biased… many Jewish scholars think that the Settlements are illegal.
      What I said was.. let us remove all people who are all potentially biased and see what is left and look at their opinions..

  10. Leon Poddebsky

    CB’s self-righteous assertion of superiority about where he lives and where I have lived, compound the bankruptcy of his position.

    To refer to an advisory OPINION, not JUDGEMENT of the International Court, and to suppress the fact that Israel did not present its comprehensive case for the legality of the communities in Judea and Samaria before that court is to reveal a disgraceful adherence to the conviction that Israel does not have a right to equal justice.

    That conviction is demonstrated by the United Nations Organisation for almost 365 days a year.
    It is shared by the European Union and by antisemites globally.

    • Yes, far better to refer to the opinion of David Singer and Leon Poddebsky than the advisory opinion of the ICJ. I am sure you are correct and that the ICJ are just confused.

      my word. It is **only** an opinion of the ICJ. There normal practice is to give opinions that are totally the opposite of what they would decide in a judgement. It keeps people on their toes. If only Israel had have presented their case.. I am just sure the ICJ had no idea about those points made by David Singer and yourself, I mean how on earth could judges in the ICJ actually know International Law of the situation without someone explaining it to them?

      • Ho-hum C.B…’ve now reached boredom level…tiresome even. Scurry along now matey….

      • CB. Seeing as to how you have issues with Israel living on its ancestral lands which She has lived on for over 3000 years, just curious here… I presume you have the same thoughts as to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc., all of which are fabricated creations from the British and French Mandates.

        • Yes. something has sunk in. That is, we are finally getting closer to the truth of what is happening, as displayed by you (Shirlee) and Grahams latest posts. The issue of illegality is clear and settled, you all ran out of arguments when confronted with the reality of the ICJs 2004 opinion coupled to the fact that the only thing of significance that has happened since then is the SC resolution 2334 which considerably strengthens the case for illegality. So now, the real position is being put forward. It is Jewish land and we own it all. regardless of what the International community says. Regardless of International Law.

          Ok. Fine. If that is your position just say it. But dont try to kid yourselves that it is legal in the eyes of International Law. You can argue that it **should be legal** but not that it **is** legal, because it is not.

  11. This is the last I am posting. I can post plenty of information but this will do. I have more to do with my time.

    Israel’s right to Judaea and Samaria.

    In November 1917, British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour endorsed the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This is known as the Balfour Declaration.

    In July 1922, the League of Nations unanimously passed the Mandate for Palestine, which was based on the San Remo Resolution, the first international legal document that recognised the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

    After WWII, the League of Nations ceased to exist, and the United Nations was established. Chapter XII of the Charter of the UN deals with the “International Trusteeship System,” which applies to the Mandate system.

    Once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, Article 80 of this chapter preserved intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine. The UN Charter is an international treaty, and as such binding in international law.

    In 1947, Great Britain declared her intention to turn the Mandate for Palestine back to the UN because Arab reactions against Israel’s rights in Palestine were severely problematic.

    November 29, 1947, the General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into a state for the Jews and a state for the Arabs. (Note: NOTHING was said about a “Palestinian state or Palestinian Arabs.) : General Assembly resolutions carry no weight in international law. Its resolutions are only recommendations. The General Assembly recommended that Palestine be divided.

    The Jews accepted the resolution, the Arabs rejected it. Thus, Resolution 181 was null and void. It carried no weight whatsoever. This means that the Mandate was still in effect – nothing in international law had superseded it.

    Following the war of 1948-9 Israel and Jordan signed an armistice agreement. The line between Israel and Jordan was an armistice line. Jordan demanded that it be stated in the armistice agreement that this was a temporary line and that the final border had to be determined by negotiations. This armistice line, which was often referred to as the Green Line, was temporary. And yet the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters refer to it as the 1967 “border” and insist that Israel must withdraw to it. There is no basis for this demand in international law.

    When Israel took all of Judaea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem in the Six Day War of 1967, she was only moving into unclaimed Mandate land. Israel cannot be an occupier in land that according to international law belonged to her in the first place.

    • Dream on Shirlee.

      If what you said is true, why did the ICJ state in 2004 their opinion that the Settlements are illegal?
      What effect do you think that resolution 2334 has on that opinion?

      Has that sunk in?
      I suggest that you let it sink in.

      • C. B.

        UNSC Resolution 2334 is not worth the paper it is written on and will be nullified and I am sure it is already being worked on. That is possible because it is a non-binding resolution BTW.

        If you think that Israel, or indeed any country or person with a brain in their head, takes notice of what comes from the United ‘Arab’ Nations think again. That abominable antisemitic institution is now in for a huge shake up. I suggest you read what Nikki Haley, the new US Ambassador to the ‘UAN’ has to say.

      • CB

        The ICJ came to the conclusion it did because it failed to consider article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

        Why did they do that?

        Because the Secretary General of the UN – Kofi Annan – who requested the ICJ opinion – did not ask them to do so.

        The question Annan asked them to give their opinion on was:

        “What are the legal consequences arising from rhe construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalern,as described in fhe report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? ”

        The advisory opinion was given specifically in response to that question.

        Note the question is drafted in very similar language to the language used in Resolution 2334.

        However one of the judges – Justice El-Araby – did urge the Court to delve deeper into its research into the international legal status of the disputed territories with this astute statement:

        “The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”

        The Court failed to heed his warning and did not consider the legal effect of the Mandate.

        So the Court answered Annan’s question as framed by him – but there would have been a very different answer had the question been framed as follows:

        “What are the legal consequences arising from rhe construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the territories disputed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation as described in fhe report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Mandate for Palestine, article 80 of the United Nations Charter, fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? ”

        Ask half a question and you will only get half an answer.

  12. To CB

    I asked you on 25 January to respond to my following post:

    “Resolution 2334 is illegal because:
    1. Article 80 of the UN Charter preserves the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in East Jerusalem, Gaza, Judea and and Samaria (West Bank) pursuant to the1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
    2. Resolution 2334 violates article 80 because it seeks to deny the rights preserved by article 80.
    3. The UN Security Council cannot act in contravention of the UN Charter.

    If you want to dispute my claim then state the specific facts or opinions on which you rely.

    Your only answer so far has been:
    “The claim that resolution 2334 itself “illegal” is quite amazing. Really clutching at straws there. Illegal?? Really? wow. Sure you are not just being biased here?”

    That generalised rubbish is not good enough – and indeed insulting.

    What bias are you referring to? Is it that I am Jewish? Don’t you think Jews can hold opinions without their views being summarily dismissed as being biased?

    I have stated my above reasons to justify my claim that Resolution 2334 is illegal.

    Now you must state your reasons why you disagree and we can then have a reasoned discussion.

    In simple terms – put up or shut up.”

    Do I take your silence to mean you have decided you have nothing to put up ?

    • After huffing and puffing a bit, Palestinianists generally fall silent when confronted with evidence. Depends, to a certain extent, on how much they’ve bought into Pappe and the rest of the pseudo-scholars; whose Swiss Cheesecloth malarkey falls apart at a sneeze.

      • Acher

        CB’s silence is indeed strange following his numerous sarcastic posts to date including:

        “Yes, far better to refer to the opinion of David Singer and Leon Poddebsky than the advisory opinion of the ICJ. I am sure you are correct and that the ICJ are just confused.”

        Perhaps CB is confused by my detailed responses on the ICJ advisory opinion and the illegality of Resolution 2334 and has written to the UN trying to find answers to rebut my claims.

        He will get plenty of irrelevant and self-serving rubbish from the UN – which has made a complete fool of itself with pious declarations of what constitutes international law on the question of the Mandate for Palestine.

        I will be delighted to answer any detailed and substantive responses he cares to make.

        • Sarcasm bordering on antisemitism.
          I also thought it strange how he vanished. Maybe he was defeated.

          • Shirlee

            I am getting a little worried about CB.

            Something must have happened to him or her. No one as vocal as he or she is would suddenly shut up and not post some reponse to my last two lengthy comments on the ICJ case and Resolution 2334.

            Do you have his or her full name and email address so you can contact him or her to make sure he or she is ok?