bluetornados
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 15,768
|
Post by bluetornados on Jul 20, 2024 5:49:55 GMT
UN's top court gives opinion on Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories..ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/1024/cpsprodpb/1262/live/dbadba70-45ce-11ef-b74c-bb483a802c97.jpgThe UN's top court is issuing a landmark opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories The UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to give its view on Israel's policies and practices towards the Palestinians, and on the legal status of the occupation Any opinion from the court is not legally binding - but carries significant political weight Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war. As the occupying power, Israel's actions are subject to a detailed set of rules under international law Before hearings started, Israel said it did not recognise "the legitimacy of the discussion" at the ICJ The Palestinian Authority's foreign minister told the court that his people had endured "colonialism and apartheid" And what was the opinion? Just for you Les my dear friend, UN top court says Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal..Raffi Berg, BBC News, London.The UN's top court has said Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is against international law, in a landmark opinion. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said Israel should stop settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and end its "illegal" occupation of those areas and the Gaza Strip as soon as possible. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the court had made a "decision of lies". The court's advisory opinion is not legally binding but still carries significant political weight. It marks the first time the ICJ has delivered a position on the legality of the 57-year occupation. The ICJ, based at The Hague in the Netherlands, has been examining the issue since the beginning of last year, at the request of the UN General Assembly, external. The court was specifically asked to give its view on Israel's policies and practices towards the Palestinians, and on the legal status of the occupation. Delivering the court's findings, external, ICJ President Nawaf Salam said it had found that "Israel's... continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal." "The State of Israel is under the obligation to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible," he said. He said Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did not bring Israel's occupation of that area to an end because it still exercises effective control over it. The court also said Israel should evacuate all of its settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and pay reparations to Palestinians for damages caused by the occupation. Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. The court said the settlements were illegal. Israel has consistently disputed that they are against international law. The ICJ said Israel's "policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory", which it said was against international law, adding that Israel was "not entitled to sovereignty" over any part of the occupied territories. Israel claims sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem, the eastern half of which it captured in the 1967 Middle East war. It considers the city its indivisible capital - something which is not accepted by the vast majority of the international community. Among its other far-reaching conclusions, the court said Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in the occupied territories constituted "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin". It also said Israel had illegally exploited the Palestinians' natural resources and violated their right to self-determination. The court also advised states to avoid any actions, including providing aid or assistance, that would maintain the current situation. Israel's prime minister swiftly issued a blunt statement rejecting what the court had determined. "The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land - not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, nor in our ancestral heritage of Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), Mr Netanyahu said in a statement. "No decision of lies in The Hague will distort this historical truth, and similarly, the legality of Israeli settlements in all parts of our homeland cannot be disputed." But the court's findings were welcomed by the Palestinians. Hussein Al Sheikh, the secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the Palestinians' main umbrella group, called it "a historic victory for the rights of the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination. And the collapse and defeat of the Judaization project through confiscation, settlement, displacement, and racist practices against a people under occupation. "The international community must respect the opinion of international justice and force Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories," he said. The court's findings will now go to the UN General Assembly, which will decide how to respond, including the option of adopting a resolution. That would be significant and could constitute a catalyst for negotiations and set the legal parameters for a future negotiated settlement. This case is separate from another active case brought to the ICJ by South Africa accusing Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians in the war in Gaza.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 20, 2024 6:49:17 GMT
That's better. Although a much shorter summary would have been even better.
I wonder if the Israelis will now be found guilty also of war crimes given the shocking level of casualties amongst the children of GAZA.
|
|
|
Post by baselswh on Jul 20, 2024 6:53:43 GMT
ICJ. Not legally binding. Thank them for their opinion.
Push on Israel.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 20, 2024 7:08:45 GMT
ICJ. Not legally binding. Thank them for their opinion. Push on Israel. Their rulings are legally binding in our country, the UK. Are you suggesting we break the law?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 20, 2024 7:21:37 GMT
ICJ. Not legally binding. Thank them for their opinion. Push on Israel. Their rulings are legally binding in our country, the UK. Are you suggesting we break the law? It is not a ruling, merely an opinion. It is not legally binding.
|
|
|
Post by baselswh on Jul 20, 2024 7:22:35 GMT
ICJ. Not legally binding. Thank them for their opinion. Push on Israel. Their rulings are legally binding in our country, the UK. Are you suggesting we break the law? Oh,but we could leave and then ignore the ICJ. No chance of that of course.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 20, 2024 7:45:46 GMT
Their rulings are legally binding in our country, the UK. Are you suggesting we break the law? It is not a ruling, merely an opinion. It is not legally binding. Netanyahu has an arrest warrant out on him. If he entered the UK we would be legally bound to arrest him.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 20, 2024 7:46:24 GMT
Their rulings are legally binding in our country, the UK. Are you suggesting we break the law? Oh,but we could leave and then ignore the ICJ. No chance of that of course. We are founding members
|
|
|
Post by baselswh on Jul 20, 2024 8:06:50 GMT
Oh,but we could leave and then ignore the ICJ. No chance of that of course. We are founding members Thanks for the information. We could leave and do our own thing we won't, but we have that option.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 20, 2024 8:17:17 GMT
Thanks for the information. We could leave and do our own thing we won't, but we have that option. It always surprises me that those that shout loudest about our culture and laws appear to understand so little of them
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 20, 2024 11:01:43 GMT
It is not a ruling, merely an opinion. It is not legally binding. Netanyahu has an arrest warrant out on him. If he entered the UK we would be legally bound to arrest him. That is a different case/subject. Yes, the UK is legally bound to follow the judgements of the ICJ, but this latest thing is just an opinion. It is NOT legally binding.
|
|
|
Post by baselswh on Jul 20, 2024 11:15:00 GMT
Netanyahu has an arrest warrant out on him. If he entered the UK we would be legally bound to arrest him. That is a different case/subject. Yes, the UK is legally bound to follow the judgements of the ICJ, but this latest thing is just an opinion. It is NOT legally binding. Good to hear Nobby. Apparently you're wrong Oldie.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 20, 2024 11:40:37 GMT
That is a different case/subject. Yes, the UK is legally bound to follow the judgements of the ICJ, but this latest thing is just an opinion. It is NOT legally binding. Good to hear Nobby. Apparently you're wrong Oldie. I said their "Rulings" This judgement was arrived at the behest of the UN. You cannot arrest a whole country, but given that they have judged the occupation to be illegal it then becomes easier to go after the leaders and perpetrators of Zionist expansion
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 21, 2024 7:42:12 GMT
Good to hear Nobby. Apparently you're wrong Oldie. I said their "Rulings" This judgement was arrived at the behest of the UN. You cannot arrest a whole country, but given that they have judged the occupation to be illegal it then becomes easier to go after the leaders and perpetrators of Zionist expansion You are getting mixed up Oldie. The case against the Israeli leadership is to do with the Israeli defensive actions in Gaza. This latest opinion is based upon the settlements. There was no court case regarding the settlements. The ICJ were asked to give their opinion. It is not a 'judgement', nor is it a 'ruling', but just an opinion.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 21, 2024 7:48:05 GMT
I said their "Rulings" This judgement was arrived at the behest of the UN. You cannot arrest a whole country, but given that they have judged the occupation to be illegal it then becomes easier to go after the leaders and perpetrators of Zionist expansion You are getting mixed up Oldie. The case against the Israeli leadership is to do with the Israeli defensive actions in Gaza. This latest opinion is based upon the settlements. There was no court case regarding the settlements. The ICJ were asked to give their opinion. It is not a 'judgement', nor is it a 'ruling', but just an opinion. Ummmm "This judgement was arrived at the behest of the UN"
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 21, 2024 7:53:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 21, 2024 8:52:45 GMT
And the first six words... "The Court gives its Advisory Opinion". Not a judgement. Not a ruling.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 21, 2024 9:04:39 GMT
And the first six words... "The Court gives its Advisory Opinion". Not a judgement. Not a ruling. Israel... occupation.... unlawful... If the UK was occupied, unlawfully, what do we think we would do? Basel would be cheering on the occupiers to eliminate any of us who resisted, including our children... because that is what he has done over GAZA....like so many others.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 22, 2024 12:00:27 GMT
This doesn't seem to be getting the media coverage it deserves. Maybe because it's not anti-Israeli? It appears that not everyone in the ICJ have the same opinion. "Read the dissenting opinion of Judge Sebutinde, Vice-President of ICJ. She says the ICJ Advisory Opinion is one-sided & doesn’t reflect an impartial examination of the legal & factual questions" ICJ Vice-President
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,561
|
Post by oldie on Jul 22, 2024 12:28:45 GMT
"Judge Sebutinde has written a masterful and almost poetic dissention. Unlike the ludicrous conclusion the court has come to, Judge Sebutinde references the astonished breadth of evidence that asserts the ancient historic Jewish nature of the Land of Israel. A must-read."
That's alright then...things that happened a couple of thousand years ago justifies taking land off others because of their race, illegally occupying the land, and killing kids of those that resist.
The claim is highly dubious in any event
|
|