Ya Libnan

Israeli minister: Palestinians should be punished and lose 60% of West Bank

Share:

israeli settlements west bank mapA senior Israeli official has called on Tel Aviv to annex 60 percent of the West Bank in response to its deadlocked US-brokered negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Israeli Finance Minister Naftali Bennett has launched a publicity campaign for his plan called ‘Settlement Blocs First,’ urging the regime’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday to annex nearly 60 percent of West Bank in a bid to punish the PA for efforts to further Palestinian recognition at the United Nations.

The Israeli official claims his plan should serve as a retort to the failed talks between Tel Aviv and the Palestinian Authority.

The plan calls for annexing territories such as Ariel and Beit el-Ofra.

Bennett’s call came through a letter to Netanyahu, insisting that the era of negotiations has come to an end.

“It is clear that the diplomatic process has run its course and that we are entering a new era,” Bennett wrote in the letter. “We have been hitting our heads against the wall of negotiations over and over again for years and we kept getting surprised when the wall did not break. The time has come for new thinking.”

On April 6, Netanyahu threatened to take unilateral measures against the Palestinian Authority unless it abandoned plans to join the international agencies and treaties. The PA’s bid to join several UN agencies came in response to Israel’s refusal to free a final batch of Palestinian prisoners as part of a prior deal.

Since the resumption of the direct talks between the two sides in last July, Palestinians have also objected to a number of issues, including Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The Israeli settlements are considered illegal under international law. However, Netanyahu says the settlement construction is part of Israel’s policy and will not stop.

Al Bawaba

Share:

Comments

51 responses to “Israeli minister: Palestinians should be punished and lose 60% of West Bank”

  1. cook2half Avatar
    cook2half

    “A senior Israeli official has called on Tel Aviv”

    And that boys and girls is when you know the article is written by some bearded akhmed.

    Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

    1. nagy_michael2 Avatar
      nagy_michael2

      Jerusalem is the Capital of Dahia according to Nassrallah..

      1. cook2half Avatar
        cook2half

        But its occupied by “the regime of Natanyahu” lol

        1. Comtessa di Alba Avatar
          Comtessa di Alba

          How about they’re all regimes in Middle East ..?

          1. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Natanyahu has no power

          2. Comtessa di Alba Avatar
            Comtessa di Alba

            Full of himself ?

          3. 5thDrawer Avatar
            5thDrawer

            It’s a Democracy (albeit with too many parties), and he is under his people.

          4. nagy_michael2 Avatar
            nagy_michael2

            Or the balls to do anything. He is no different than Obama..

          5. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Exactly. Any decisions he makes is the result of whether Livni or Bennett barks the loudest

        2. Farq2 Avatar
          Farq2

          Remember Cook, what goes up must come down. The Zionist will have their day soon enough. Greed will eventually consume them. It’s only a matter of time.

          1. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            That’s fine. Just saying the article uses inaccurate information. “Tel Aviv” lol is the mayor of Tel Aviv suddenly involved in the talks? Do one of the MK’s have some secret apartment there?

    2. Farq2 Avatar
      Farq2

      Well obviously a law those lawless scum bag Jews don’t abide by Cook.

      1. cook2half Avatar
        cook2half

        Which one? lol. Why doesnt this fakestinian who wrote this article cite some lawyer or something saying in what way its illegal

    3. Farq2 Avatar
      Farq2

      Well obviously a law those lawless scum bag Jews don’t abide by Cook.

    4. man-o-war Avatar
      man-o-war

      http://www.reuters.Com/article/2014/04/10/us-palestinian-israel-annexation-idUSBREA390NZ20140410

      1. cook2half Avatar
        cook2half

        Abbas has been extremely greedy to ask for murderers to be released just to negotiate.

        Arafat was offered the entire 1967 borders with east Jerusalem as his capital and expanded borders for Gaza. He simply wanted the conflict to continue however. President Clinton blamed him and realized his true intentions. Bush couldn’t even bother.

        They’ve had many chances in 1937,1947,1967,2000,2001 and 2008 to have a state but theyve rejected an offer for a state every time either for greed or simply wanting the conflict to continue for its own sake. Could I say Israeli annexation after 47 years of all this whining was inevitable?

    5. man-o-war Avatar
      man-o-war

      http://www.economist.Com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21600710-john-kerrys-dogged-bid-two-state-solution-has-faltered-peace-process

      1. cook2half Avatar
        cook2half

        Written by a l1btard. Propaganda doesn’t replace international law.

        1. man-o-war Avatar
          man-o-war

          It’s all propaganda, when it doesn’t agree with your views. Of course, written by a “libtard”, you’re a freaking joke. Every source that i post for you is somehow propaganda, anti-semitic, self hating jew, left wing nut job, and on and on. I told you already, give me a list of zionist approved sources that I can use.

          1. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Its a biased opinion piece.

          2. man-o-war Avatar
            man-o-war

            The zionist interpretation of international law is a biased opinion piece as well.

          3. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Law is hard to objectively interpret, hence why lawyers exist.

          4. 5thDrawer Avatar
            5thDrawer

            But why do they all need to be Jewish ?? ;-)))))

          5. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            What, the settlers? I dont know lol..

          6. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Law is hard to objectively interpret, hence why lawyers exist.

          7. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Of course it is. A greater Israel is a must.

    6. man-o-war Avatar
      man-o-war

      Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention[vi] explicitly prohibits an “Occupying Power” (Israel) from transferring any part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. The Hague Convention of 1907[vii] also prohibit occupying powers from making any permanent changes in the territories they occupy that are not undertaken in accordance with a narrow definition of military necessity or for the purpose of benefiting the local population.

      1. 5thDrawer Avatar
        5thDrawer

        Is that like ‘dragging the local population kicking and screaming into the 22nd Century’? 😉

      2. cook2half Avatar
        cook2half

        Applies only to signatory states and more to do with forced deportations. Why does the PLO which moved there in 1993 have any more right to build there troll?

        1. 5thDrawer Avatar
          5thDrawer

          If you didn’t add the ‘troll’ bit (pot calls kettle ‘black’), sometimes you can make a point in a better way. We’re all fishing here, aren’t we?

          1. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Its just that we’ve been through this before.

            “According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Article 49 relates to situations where populations are coerced into being transferred. There is nothing to link such circumstances to Israel’s settlement policy.”

            The international lawyer Prof. Eugene V. Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State, stated in 1990:

            “[T]he Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviet Union during and before the Second World War – the mass transfer of people into and out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor or colonization, for example….The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are most emphatically volunteers. They have not been “deported” or “transferred” to the area by the Government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population it is the goal of the Geneva Convention to prevent.”

            Ambassador Morris Abram, a member of the U.S. staff at the Nuremburg Tribunal and later involved in the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is on record as stating that the convention:

            “was not designed to cover situations like Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, but rather the forcible transfer, deportation or resettlement of large numbers of people.”

          2. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Article 49: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

            “During the negotiation on the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,12 Arab states initiated an alteration in the text of the Court’s statute listing as a serious violation of the laws of armed conflict the war crime of “transferring, directly or indirectly, parts of the civil population into the occupied territory.”13 The deliberate addition of the phrase “directly or indirectly” to the original 1949 text was intended by them to adapt the original 1949 Geneva Convention language in order to render it applicable to Israel’s settlement policy. This in itself is indicative of the proponents’ and the international community’s acknowledgement of the fact that Article 49 as drafted in 1949 was simply not relevant to the circumstances of Israel’s settlements.”

          3. 5thDrawer Avatar
            5thDrawer

            An attempt to address the changing circumstances over time … one in which ‘the state’ allows people to ‘resettle’ wherever they want to – much more difficult to find a solution for. Squatting is not the best way to endear oneself to any farmer, for sure.
            When people buy property, they only own it as long as the state allows the ‘rules’ of purchase. Those rules should be defined – and one hopes, very long lasting. But land – given by ‘the state’ for purchase – can also be taken by the state when it feels the need justifies it. In most democracies, this can be a long legal process to show ‘need’, and fair compensation hopefully follows to allow the dispossessed to relocate and buy another spot. If you tended a flower garden for 30 years, and now someone wants to pave it, they must prove the benefit to ‘the state’ … to the society in general. This applies, or should, even if it’s only a pile of sand with a favourite camel-dung collection on it.

          4. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Then they should publish new laws regarding your point, rather than get something that was written during the biggest war in history with millions displaced and have the guts to make it relevant to building in Jerusalem

          5. 5thDrawer Avatar
            5thDrawer

            Yes. Of course. And laws which apply to ALL in that state.
            I’m sure that many have seen the benefits of doing things in a modern-method way – difficult to make a dessert flower without a lot of work – but a necessity if you want to keep making babies without having them starve to death.
            The ‘trick’ is to show everyone the benefits.
            Unfortunately, Religion doesn’t.

          6. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Then they should publish new laws regarding your point, rather than get something that was written during the biggest war in history with millions displaced and have the guts to make it relevant to building in Jerusalem

          7. 5thDrawer Avatar
            5thDrawer

            Yes .. also like the Turks did to Armenians … etc, etc.

          8. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Also another thing I was pointing out:

            Geneva Conventions Article 2 – “The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.

            The West Bank was never a part of a sovereign state. Its like Argentina illegally occupying the Falkland Islands (assuming it was never part of a state) then crying about human rights and law when another power moves in.

          9. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Also another thing I was pointing out:

            Geneva Conventions Article 2 – “The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.

            The West Bank was never a part of a sovereign state. Its like Argentina illegally occupying the Falkland Islands (assuming it was never part of a state) then crying about human rights and law when another power moves in.

          10. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Its just that we’ve been through this before.

            “According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Article 49 relates to situations where populations are coerced into being transferred. There is nothing to link such circumstances to Israel’s settlement policy.”

            The international lawyer Prof. Eugene V. Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State, stated in 1990:

            “[T]he Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviet Union during and before the Second World War – the mass transfer of people into and out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor or colonization, for example….The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are most emphatically volunteers. They have not been “deported” or “transferred” to the area by the Government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population it is the goal of the Geneva Convention to prevent.”

            Ambassador Morris Abram, a member of the U.S. staff at the Nuremburg Tribunal and later involved in the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is on record as stating that the convention:

            “was not designed to cover situations like Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, but rather the forcible transfer, deportation or resettlement of large numbers of people.”

          11. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Article 49: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

            “During the negotiation on the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Arab states initiated an alteration in the text of the Court’s statute listing as a serious violation of the laws of armed conflict the war crime of “transferring, directly or indirectly, parts of the civil population into the occupied territory.” The deliberate addition of the phrase “directly or indirectly” to the original 1949 text was intended by them to adapt the original 1949 Geneva Convention language in order to render it applicable to Israel’s settlement policy. This in itself is indicative of the proponents’ and the international community’s acknowledgement of the fact that Article 49 as drafted in 1949 was simply not relevant to the circumstances of Israel’s settlements.”

        2. man-o-war Avatar
          man-o-war

          Haha, the greatest troll of all calls me a troll. I guess I’m learning from the best, thanks.

          Try this op-ed on and tell me how it feels. I’ll be waiting for some attack against the writers character or how he doesn’t get it. Only zionist interpretation of international law counts, right?

          http://www.jpost.Com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-settlements-are-illegal-under-international-law-336507

          1. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            “Belligerent occupation is a specific category under the international laws of war that comes into effect when a state captures territory from another state”

            Again, as I said to 5th, its like Argentina illegally occupying the Falkland Islands, and then when the British come to invade, calling it “occupation from another state”. Jordan’s occupation was illegal, it wasnt a part of the state of Jordan or any other state in history.

            The rest of it about the transfer being forced or not; this is the author’s word against other authors. Lawyers who were involved in drafting the conventions (I cited one below) made it clear that its talking about the millions of people transferred from place to place such as concentration camps, in a major war where life was hell.

            Under Israel’s control, the West Bank had the 4th best economy in the world. Palestinians went to Israel for work and spoke Hebrew. Palestinian polls portrayed Israel as a democracy like no other. Even today 61% of palestinians want to be a part of Israel. No comparison to the second world war.

            Also – historical context. The author ignores that 75% of today’s settlements for indiginous Jewish communities before Jordan illegally occupied and deported them in the thousands. 19 years later its suddenly illegal for them to move back? a lot of these settlers have a family history there, especially the case with east Jerusalem.

          2. man-o-war Avatar
            man-o-war

            Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

            Art. 49. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

          3. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            Oh poor things. boo hoo. 97% of Palestinians live in Area A of the West Bank (Ramallah, Jenin, Jericho, etc). The 5% of the West Bank which has settlements was all uninhabited, and the majority of the West Bank is still uninhabited. A Jewish family voluntarily moving to Ariel threatens palestinians’ lives?

            Again, Morris Abram (which I cited below) was actually involved in drafting the conventions. His opinion is more relevant than any agenda-orientated, narrow interpretation of international law which ignores the fact that Israel does apply the humanitarian aspects of the convention

          4. man-o-war Avatar
            man-o-war

            “Oh poor things. boo hoo.”, haha, life is so unfair.

            Is Morris Abram a Jew? Also, if they meant for it to only refer to forcible transfers why didn’t they add that in front of the word?

            “Individual or mass FORCIBLE TRANSFER, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive……………….The Occupying Power shall not deport or TRANSFER parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

          5. cook2half Avatar
            cook2half

            In other words, the kingdom of transjordan should not have forcibly deported thousands of indigenous Jews from the West Bank and east Jerusalem in 1948, and then transferred parts of its own Jordanian civilian population into West Bank towns. Potato potahto.

            Its like Argentinians illegally flooding the Falkland Islands or Turks going into northern Cyprus, then calling it “occupation” when another country does the same. Hypocrites.

        3. man-o-war Avatar
          man-o-war

          Haha, the greatest troll of all calls me a troll. I guess I’m learning from the best, thanks.

          Try this op-ed on and tell me how it feels. I’ll be waiting for some attack against the writers character or how he doesn’t get it. Only zionist interpretation of international law counts, right?

          http://www.jpost.Com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-settlements-are-illegal-under-international-law-336507

  2. MekensehParty Avatar
    MekensehParty

    Who cares what that idiot says? Naftali knows that what he’s saying is only a PR stunt for the other idiots who vote for him and nothing else. Taking 60% of the West Bank means that Israel will be as isolated as North Korea.
    Netanyahu’s government is a sinking ship, all of Israel is a sinking ship until they return to the herd.
    All this braking is just farq on tiles.

  3. Adam Yonatan Ben Yoel Avatar
    Adam Yonatan Ben Yoel

    Whomever wrote this article is either ignorant or lying. Bennett didn’t say that. They’ve never had more than 40% of the West Bank, everrrrr so how can they lose it?

  4. Eddster Avatar
    Eddster

    Pardon mi ignorance, but what is the big deal if Palestinian seek further Palestinian recognition at the UN, why is Israel up in arms about this issue can someone shed some light on this topic.

Leave a Reply