EU report calls for action against Israeli settlements

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16612274


18 January 2012 Last updated at 14:19 GMT
EU report calls for action against Israeli settlements

By Yolande Knell BBC News, Jerusalem
The number of Jewish settlers in Arab East Jerusalem is increasing

The European Commission is being urged to consider drafting legislation to ensure financial transactions by EU member states do not support Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem.
The proposal is made in a confidential report by top EU diplomats in the area.
The report says "the systematic increase in settlement activity" undermines a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
It also describes a "deteriorating situation on the ground".
The EU Heads of Mission Report on East Jerusalem, which was sent to Brussels this week and was leaked to the BBC, builds on earlier reports that also criticised Israeli policies.
In a long list of recommendations, it suggests that the Commission proposes "appropriate EU legislation to prevent/discourage financial transactions in support of settlement activity".
Settlements are considered illegal under international law although Israel disputes this.

The EU document argues that Israel is "actively perpetuating its annexation" of Arab East Jerusalem, which it captured in 1967, by "systematically undermining the Palestinian presence in the city".
It outlines the problems caused by "the continued expansion of settlements, restrictive zoning and planning, ongoing demolitions and evictions, an inequitable education policy, difficult access to health care, the inadequate provision of resources and investment and the precarious residency issue".
The Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future state, but Israel is determined that Jerusalem be its undivided capital.
'Facts on the ground'
Palestinian officials are reluctant to respond to the report because it has not been published.
However, speaking on condition of anonymity one told the BBC: "We think it shows facts on the ground that nobody can dispute. We now expect European capitals to implement the recommendations."

UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has described settlements as an act of "vandalism"

This document follows a number of strongly-worded European statements and reports that have come to light in recent days.
On Monday, the UK's Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, condemned settlements as "an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise upon which negotiations have taken place for years".

An internal EU report leaked last week was very critical of Israel's policies and planning rules in "Area C", the 62% of the West Bank which it fully controls.
A French parliamentary report also described Israel's water policies in the occupied Palestinian territories as a form of "apartheid", because they give preferential treatment to Jewish settlers. The comments were welcomed by the head of the Palestinian Water Authority.

Stealing others land evictions and the Frence saying Israels water policies in the occupied territories is a form of apartheid because they give preferential treatment to the settlers.Even the UKs Nick Cleeg says settlements are a deliberate act of vandalism of a peace deal.
I believe Europeans should inforce international law on Israel in regards to these acts of barbaric zionist behaviour.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...NamXVCY01vvP2g OR DID GOD GIVE THEM THE RIGHT

[sumskilz]

I believe Europeans should inforce international law on Israel in regards to these acts of barbaric zionist behaviour.

How would they do that?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

How would they do that?

And why should it always be Europe? Ban Iranian oil, impose sanctions against various Arabian states and then on Israel? I don't get that.

[hellheaven1987]

And why should it always be Europe? Ban Iranian oil, impose sanctions against various Arabian states and then on Israel? I don't get that.

Come on, your Athenian ancestors would do anything for the progress of humanity, even it means bankrupted themselves.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

And why should it always be Europe? Ban Iranian oil, impose sanctions against various Arabian states and then on Israel? I don't get that.

Because Eurocrats don't understand the world's "biggest economy" is still very small in comparision with the world's economy.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Sanctions.
I mean if they break international law they should have to suffer the consequences right?
We impose them on other barbaric places like Iran and Syria.

[hellheaven1987]

The Return of Europeans? Although I do agree someone needs to slap Israeli Empire heavily so Israeli would know their place (preferable a Muslim power, probably a joint-alliance of Muslim Brotherhood and AKP).

[Rome101]

There are no "settlements" in EJ. Someone either got their definitions wrong or their head stuck up their arse.
Let's make justice and explain what a settlement is in the Israeli-Palestinian context, shall we?

A settlement, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is an area inhabited by Jews in Israel, but is under the territory of neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority, or inside the Palestinian Authority's mandate (a.k.a the C Zone) but not under their permissions and/or acknowledgement.

That said, EJ is completley under the territory of Israel and so the government can build whatever it wants and put in whoever they want in Jerusalem be it East, West, North, South or Cambodia-ward.
While it is true that Israel is not permitted to populate non-Israeli territory with Israeli citizens, the same cannot be told in Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself is not a settlement, and the areas surrounding it as well as the city itself are all a part of the Israeli nation. Saying Israel is building settlements in Jerusalem is the same as saying Israel is building settlements in Tel Aviv. It's simply taking the word and using it out of context in an attempt to describe something of entire different context.

The international community doesn't even have a saying in this. We don't let them decide what we're going to build in Ashdod or Acre, why should Jerusalem be any different?

[hellheaven1987]

That said, EJ is completley under the territory of Israel and so the government can build whatever it wants and put in whoever they want in Jerusalem be it East.

Sorry, UN already proclaimed the annexation is illegal.

[Rome101]

Sorry, UN already proclaimed the annexation is illegal.

On what grounds?
Jordan was the previous owners and they initiated war against Israel, a war which brought to them losing Jerusalem. They later revoked their claim of the city, so Israel is the owner of it.

The only reason the UN does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and it must be reminded that this is moronic, since no one else has any right to determine what city is who's capital), is because they'd rather have it as corpus separatum, but since the Palestinian country chose not to exist back in 1947, Jerusalem can't be corpus separatum and the UN will never withdraw their proposal on the count of mistakenly trusting the Palestinians with the opportunity of a state.

And even if in the future a Palestinian state will form, R181 was never materialized nor agreed upon and so it remains a draft, a non-binding document that lacks any mutually applied understandings or legislative power, which means Jerusalem is not automatically corpus separatum.

The only legal way to determine who the city belongs to is to go further back into the mandate of Britain.
After seeing Jerusalem was left by the Brits to the hands of faith and never proclaiming the rightful owners of the city, Jordan decided to take Jerusalem by force during the 1948 Arab offensive. They lost the Western part of the city a day later but maintained control of the Eastern part and the Old City until 1967, during which the city was captured by defensive Israeli action (reminder: Jordan was the first to open hostilities and declare war on Israel, so on the Jordanian front, Israel was on the defense).

Since international laws permit the annexation of ground as a defensive step, legally EJ is Israeli territory.
So until you invent a time machine and go back a hundred years into the past and re-write the set of international law, the annexation was legal and any objection by the UN or EU, or any other foreign body at that, is nothing but a personal preference and is, like any other national-scale whim, nonobligatory at best and laughable at worst.

[justicar5]

There are no "settlements" in EJ. Someone either got their definitions wrong or their head stuck up their arse.
Let's make justice and explain what a settlement is in the Israeli-Palestinian context, shall we?

A settlement, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is an area inhabited by Jews in Israel, but is under the territory of neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority, or inside the Palestinian Authority's mandate (a.k.a the C Zone) but not under their permissions and/or acknowledgement.

That said, EJ is completley under the territory of Israel and so the government can build whatever it wants and put in whoever they want in Jerusalem be it East, West, North, South or Cambodia-ward.
While it is true that Israel is not permitted to populate non-Israeli territory with Israeli citizens, the same cannot be told in Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself is not a settlement, and the areas surrounding it as well as the city itself are all a part of the Israeli nation. Saying Israel is building settlements in Jerusalem is the same as saying Israel is building settlements in Tel Aviv. It's simply taking the word and using it out of context in an attempt to describe something of entire different context.

The international community doesn't even have a saying in this. We don't let them decide what we're going to build in Ashdod or Acre, why should Jerusalem be any different?

gee EJ doesn't appear on the map of Israel, only in the violently stolen section.

[Sir Pignans]

There are no "settlements" in EJ. Someone either got their definitions wrong or their head stuck up their arse.

The international community doesn't even have a saying in this. We don't let them decide what we're going to build in Ashdod or Acre, why should Jerusalem be any different?

A) Yes there are settlements in EJ.

B) It's disputed land that Israel illegally occupied during the 6 day war, and when we check the mandate plan, Jerusalem was never awarded to Israel, therefore it will only be Israels after negotiations have ended.

[PointOfViewGun]

There are no "settlements" in EJ. Someone either got their definitions wrong or their head stuck up their arse.
Let's make justice and explain what a settlement is in the Israeli-Palestinian context, shall we?

A settlement, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is an area inhabited by Jews in Israel, but is under the territory of neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority, or inside the Palestinian Authority's mandate (a.k.a the C Zone) but not under their permissions and/or acknowledgement.

That said, EJ is completley under the territory of Israel and so the government can build whatever it wants and put in whoever they want in Jerusalem be it East, West, North, South or Cambodia-ward.
While it is true that Israel is not permitted to populate non-Israeli territory with Israeli citizens, the same cannot be told in Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself is not a settlement, and the areas surrounding it as well as the city itself are all a part of the Israeli nation. Saying Israel is building settlements in Jerusalem is the same as saying Israel is building settlements in Tel Aviv. It's simply taking the word and using it out of context in an attempt to describe something of entire different context.

The international community doesn't even have a saying in this. We don't let them decide what we're going to build in Ashdod or Acre, why should Jerusalem be any different?

On the other hand, for the rest of the population of Earth, a settlement in this sense means an illegal construction or expansion of a community in lands that do not belong to the same people.

Cry all you want. The simple fact is that East Jerusalem has never been accepted as a part of Israel. It's simply stolen land.

[magpie]

This will be vetoed by the U.S. if it comes before the security council.
Ms Susan Rice can make another speech.

[Armenum]

This will be vetoed by the U.S. if it comes before the security council.
Ms Susan Rice can make another speech.

Which is very unfortunate. US should have the courage to point out Israel's mistakes - these mistakes just make the situation more tense and irreversible.

[Sphere]

It is true that EJ was formally annexed by Israel and all it's inhabitants were offered Israeli citizenship, which puts it in a different situation than the rest of the W. Bank.

What is going on in EJ is a slow-burning form of ethnic cleansing done through property sales, rather than a form of colonization.

[Garbarsardar]

Post reserved for comment of vetoed UN resolution which will contain at least one link to a recent thread about a vetoed UN resolution.. Scripta manent, etc, etc.

[legate]

How many UN resolutions on Isreal has the US vetoed? 40 now?

[ash874]

or maybe they are of the mind that considering israel's enemies, there is no need to make noise of some mistakes