News
UN chief urges Israel to rescind E1 settlement
Associated Press
Published: 14.01.13, 20:55
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
78 Talkbacks for this article
31. Can someone explain to Ban that
Rachel   (01.15.13)
Can someone explain to Ban that Israel won the war and captured the territory from Jordan? That means that "E1" belongs to Israel LEGALLY! Someone of his rank is either an ignorant on the matter or just plain anti-Semitic.
32. EU/Obama UNSC '67 borders coming in 2013
Steven Benassi ,   Silver Bay, MN USA   (01.15.13)
33. OH MR.MOON!! WHAT ABOUT THE 70,000 murdered Syrians???
Jewish Doctor ,   AMERICA THE BEAUTIUL   (01.15.13)
HUH? MR MOON? WHAT ABOUT THE 70,000 dead Syrians??? Doesn't that bother you, even just a little bit? I guess a bunch of "proposed" apartments mean more to you than 25,000 dead kids who will never have an apt. or a life... WAKE UP FOOL! THE DEAD ARE SCREAMING FROM THEIR GRAVES...and you bitch and moan on Israel...you insensitive yutz!
34. Looking forward to Sanctions
David ,   San Francisco   (01.15.13)
Sooner or later the world community is going to have to place harsh sanctions on this hostile and belligerent regime in "Israel." They have left us with no other choice than to strongly punish them for their actions. The US needs to cut aid to this rogue nation of Israel and punish them severely. The land does not belong to Israel and never did. They are intent on either a complete apartheid state, or following Sarah B's preference of deportation. Well the world will not sit and watch this happen.
35. TO EMILY, ROME # 3
FO ,   Belgium   (01.15.13)
You are right Emily, Ban doesn't know International Law, or I would rather say that he pretends not to know. I defy Ban and all the others who argue that Israel is violating International Law to come forward and prove it just presenting ONE, no more, ONE article of said law. I would just ask them, not to come along again with article 49 of the IVth Geneva Convention. It isn't relevant concerning what Ban calls "settlement in the West Bank", because the "West Bank" is not a "contracting party", but an integral part of the Mandate for Palestine, to become the Jewish State as decided by the League of Nations, an irrevocable decision, valid to this very day in INTERNATIONAL LAW, and last but not least, reaffirmed by the UNITED NATIONS, by Article 80 of its CHARTER! I am very doubtful that Ban doesn't know all this matter. And you too, Emily, you wonder why Netanyahu doesn't challenge him, and I would add, bearing in mind that Bibi's father, the historian, was one of the initiators of Article 80!
36. 242
Jacques VITENBERG ,   France   (01.15.13)
I see with pleasure that people understand now that 242 UNSC is our best weapon! Just not sinking it in too much literary arguments JV, attorney in Paris
37. to#4 Sarah, most of what you say is right...BUT
exUK ,   Tel Aviv   (01.15.13)
you should also recognise that it WAS the UN who voted for partition anmd thus ultimately for Israel.However unpalatable the fact may be,we cannot say that Israel is 'no business of the UN" without thinking back to our original start up via the UN.
38. to#19 If the UN is illegal,
exUK ,   Tel Aviv   (01.15.13)
39. to#19 But if the UN is illegal,
exUK ,   Tel Aviv   (01.15.13)
and it was the UN who voted for partitian and thus Israel in 1947,what does that make Israel? So stop spouting biased rubbish and argue logically if you wish to add anything constructive to a debate.Thank You
40. Ban did not impress me as aman, he looks
Sabine Mallory ,   Palm Springs   (01.15.13)
like a clown and does not uderstand politics. I myself understand more. I like Israel.
41. Looks like Ban is paid by the Arabs for any
Harry Wright ,   UK   (01.15.13)
statement he makes against Israel. How come he can rouse himself from his slumber to talk about settlements but blissfully sleeps through the slaughter of tens of thousands in Syria? Then too, after making so many of the same kinds of statements, he cannot, up to today, substantiate his statements by referencing the specific international law he accuses Israel of breaking. Either he is a DIMWIT holding a key position or an agent for somebody ....or both! Israel is right to ignore him. He is a damn JOKE and he knows it. He dares not challenge Israel in court. What is that passing under the table????
42. Not illegal
Phil N ,   Wheeling, IL, US   (01.15.13)
The idea that settlements are illegal are international law is a lie and the UN and those making the claim know it. For the settlements to in violation of international law, what seperated Jordan and Israel would have had to be internationally recognized border. All it was was a cease fire line. The so called Palestinians did not recognize any partition of the former British Mandate and even today there is some question as to what they recognize.
43. To: #21 Sarah B
That's Odd ,   Ohio, USA   (01.15.13)
Quote: “Israel will annex Judea and Samaria and there isn't a damned thing any country can do about it, except grumble.” Don't you see, they won’t recognize the annexation. There is not a single country in the world that would recognize Israel’s annexation. Not even the USA. In fact, if Israel were to annex, it would render Israel as the only country in the world without recognized borders. FOREVER.
44. UN resolutions r Worthless: Don't address LON Mandate
My Planet Israel ,   LA-Jerusalem   (01.15.13)
ALL mandates from the League of Nations were carried into the UN: NOTHING could legally be altered concerning such. ALL of Israel is the legal homeland of the Jews, NOT the arabs or palestinians. Its LAW, PERIOD. 242, or any other resolutions are BOGUS. The only borders are the Jordan to the Med, Elat to Golan. End of story. Every square inch between those is the legal property of world Jewery under the State of Israel. NOBODY ELSE has ANY legal claim to even a FLECK of the land aside from the Jews. It was voted on BY the WORLD BODY, PASSED, RATIFIED, RECOGNIZED and is now history. Good luck to the left-wing noodniks who think it is not known to both the UN and Israel: it is, Israel can do whatever it likes on that land; including confiscate and drive out inhabitants, regardless of how long they've been there, LEGALLY. Not a damn thing anyone can do about it, nor can ANY nation legally SANCTION Israel for doing such without violating BOTH the LON and UN/UNSC and all valid & binding resolutions. End of story. The fools of the western world who follow the NGO's and left-wingers who demonize Israel are nothing short of criminals who support criminality. Am Yisrael Chai: and may the Karma Bus run over every single piece of garbage who continue to single out and assail the Jews. NOW!!!
45. Ban has no authority over Israel!
Reuven   (01.15.13)
46. Is there a code of ethics not to cuss the UN Sec Gen?
Harry Wright ,   UK   (01.15.13)
Because Ban should be strongly reprimanded for his unsubstantiated statements. Is there a nice way to tell him to p**s off?
47. areas won by Israel in war that the Palestinians want"
Chaim Ben Kahn ,   Efrat, Israel   (01.15.13)
Exactly, Israel won those wars and if Nazi Germany won WWII things would be different as well, but the Nazis and their Palestinian allies lost. The land in question was annexed by Jordan who lost the war it waged against Israel. The land was never "Palestinian" and there was never an entity called "Palestine". Ban should keep quiet or learn history.
48. Us, eu the entire world are saying settlment is illegal
X   (01.15.13)
Not only Ban ki. Wake up zionists.
49. 11
(01.15.13)
242 said from territories, not all the territories. according to international law, these territories are disputed!!!!!!!!! as per the 242 resolution. do you have a reading comprehension problem? read the 242 text. carefully. there are referred to as disputed territories. this is why 242 doesn't call 1967 a border. it calls it an armistice line...to be negotiated in a peace agreement by both israel and the pa. so far, the pa has not interest in coming to the table. so, we'll keep this area until they do. also, the 1967 bordr and west bank never belonged to palestinians. they belonged to jordan, which in 1967 after israel captured this territory, GAVE UP LEGAL OWNERSHIP TO ALL OF IT. by law!
50. CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, it is totally obvious
Cipora Julianna Kohn ,   Z   (01.15.13)
ban the moon is told what to do by bho.
51. Ban Ki-Moon says West Bank are illegal
jon ,   uk   (01.15.13)
ban eu and others keeps saying it and the the more you say it becomes normal and people and the people who say it accept it as to be true even if it is a lie like the words occupied territories even israel news paper write it why dont they say disputed territories
52. UN is a waste of time!
Son Of Cyrus ,   UK   (01.15.13)
First we had Kurt Waldheim of Austria, who was an ex-nazi and was used by various countries to say and act in their favour then a series of other useless people.
53. #34 Imagine a world
Norbus ,   Jerusalem   (01.15.13)
Imagine a world that allows Iran Nukes Imagine a world looks away from Assad Imagine a world denys Jews their Land Imagine a world saying black is white Imagine a world of Alice in Wonderland Imagine a world upside down
54. #11 Educating = Doug, Rochester
Tarbouche ,   Aswan   (01.15.13)
ICC is an adjunct of European project, itself an extension of the 4th Reich 242 annuls Jordan's acquisition of West Bank territory by war, hence 1922 settlement unaltered
55. To: No. 37
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (01.15.13)
While it was the United Nations that voted for partition, I remind you that the Arab states did not accept partition, and chose to go to war instead. They lost. Israel's existence is both de jure and de facto. I don't see the Arab states -- and, more particularly, the ersatz "Palestinians" -- faring particularly well in a war against Israel, do you? Any silly attempt to dislodge Israel will merely result in the loss of more Arab territory. I think the Arab states are well aware of this, and are very reluctant to anger Israel unduly. Oh, they may pay a great deal of lip service -- and they do -- but raise arms against Israel? They are not completely stupid. They know what the outcome will be and, quite frankly, there is no love lost between the Arab states and the terrorist rabble which is the ersatz "Palestinians." No one is looking to challenge Israel any time soon. Wisely so.
56. To: No. 43
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (01.15.13)
Oh, they'll get over it, just as they did when Israel unified Jerusalem and put the whole of it under Israeli rule, and just as they did when Israel annexed the Golan Heights. They don't have to recognize annexation. Wait long enough, and de facto and de jure blend. And the simple fact of the matter is that Israel's borders are what Israel says they are. Anyone else's opinion is pure fluff. There are any number of border disputes throughout the world. But there are very few countries that will give up land ceded to them or otherwise acquired as a result of fighting a defensive war. Poland thus acquired East Prussia; the French thus acquired Alsace and Lorraine; Yugoslavia (present-day Croatia) thus acquired the Italian province of Istria, the Soviet Union thus acquired islands in the Sea of Japan and the United States thus acquired Iwo Jima and Okinawa. To be sure, Iwo Jima was restored to Japan in 1968, but 90 percent of Okinawa remains United States territory. You can go back a bit further and ask yourself how the United States acquired the Marshall Islands, Saipan and Guam. There are consequences to waging wars of aggression -- mostly territorial consequences. The Arabs are not exempt from such consequences.
57. To: No. 48
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (01.15.13)
Okay, mount an army and take back the territories you dispute. Good luck with that one .... we'll trash your stupid ass.
58. is country to keep territory it occupied in defensive war?
observer ,   Egypt   (01.15.13)
No. Article 2 of the UN Charter makes this very clear: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.” The next paragraph reads: “All [UN] Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In its ruling on Israel’s Wall in 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) repeatedly affirmed the inadmissibility of territorial conquest, emphasizing, “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The Court also averred that this principle reflected customary international law, as previously asserted in a 1986 ICJ case between Nicaragua and the United States. Thus, even were there consensus that the war in 1967 had been a “defensive war” from Israel’s standpoint, UN Charter principles and customary international law prohibit Israel from continuing to hold territory occupied during that war.
59. Biblical claims to Palestine
observer ,   Egypt   (01.15.13)
Joel 3:1-4 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink. Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompense? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompense upon your own head. The Philistines were the unwearied assailants of Israel in the days of the Judges, and Saul, and David Judges 13:1; 1 Samuel 4; 13; 17; 1 Samuel 23:1; 1 Samuel 30; 1 Samuel 31:1-13, Judges 13:1; 1 Samuel 4; 13; 17; 1 Samuel 23:1; 1 Samuel 30; 1 Samuel 31:1-13; 2 Chronicles 21:16-17; 2 Chronicles 22:1.
60. As long as Israeli Government does not claim
Zev ,   Israel   (01.15.13)
publically that these areas are part of Israel Ban is correct.
Previous talkbacks
Next talkbacks
Back to article