The Highest Peak(s)

Apparently even the residents of Tel-Aviv are "settlers" according to Parrotw.

All anexations are illegal under Art. 2/4 of the UN Charta - this is pretty clear

I don't think that this is a forum for political propaganda

#21 (tef312)

Not quite correct. This only applies between states. The West Bank was never part of any state. The entire area of former British Mandatory Palestine is disputed and no sovereignty was ever agreed upon for the WB.

I don't think that this is a forum for political propaganda

=======================================
Then why did you post your political opinion ?

The Wadi Qelt is in the Palestinian territory (West Bank), not in Israel. The hike ends in Jericho, which settlers are forbidden to access under Israeli law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Qelt

Tel Aviv is in Israel.

The Wadi Qelt is in the Palestinian territory.

I suggest you buy a map of the region.

@a1
1) You are mixing up something: the Westbank is (generally) not annexed by Israel and is not regarded as part of Israel, even by Israeli law. So this does not have anything to do with Art. 2/4 UN Charta. You are talking about the Geneva convention about transfer of population to occupied (but not annexed) area. The Geneva convention says that people of an occupying country must not be transferred to an occupied area. There are two different legal opinions: The first opinion is the main opinion of lawyers all over the world, the opinion of the International Court of justice, the UN-Security council and all states (except Israel): this opinion regards all Israeli settlements in the Westbank as illegal. The second opinion is the opinion of Israel, which says, that this Convention is not valid because the Westbank has not been part of a state. However even this opinion does not mean that by Israli law Israel is allowed to build settlements under all circumstances as the Israeli Supreme court mentioned in many decisions.

2) The thread was also about Golan, and I think we agree that Syria is a state. Isn't it? Another thing is the occupation of Golan (which is not the same as annexation), because a state has the right to occupy a territory if this is necessary for its self defence. This might be the case because Israel and Syria have no peace agreement and Israel has the right to defeat its soveregnity and the Golan heights are strategically important. But this does not mean that Israel has the right to annex this territory. So under international law the Golan heights are regarded as Syrian territory under Israeli occuption.

The differences between law and political propaganda I know very well - as a lawyer I know this. One of the biggest and most important changes of international public law after WWII was that annexations are generally forbidden since. There is no ius ad bellum to get more land anymore.

It is very sad that this forum is abused for political propaganda.It should be a travel forum.

Edited by: tef312

Edited by: tef312

#24 (tef312)

You're right that I assumed you were writing about the WB. If talking about the Golan, you are correct. The Golan Heights are definitely "occupied territory" according to International Law (IL). And, of course, I agree with everything you said in paragraph (2) about the Golan. It's a breath of fresh air on this forum when someone posts something intelligent based on facts, not biased opinions of others.

Your overall analysis of the WB situation in paragraph (1) is generally quite correct - again, thanks for going to the trouble of writing something well thought out and intelligent. However, there are certain things missing from parts of the legal arguments. Since you'll certainly agree that this forum is not the place to continue, I'll write you a PM later on about it.

Thank you for your statement. What I have written is certainly much too short and does not take everything into account which is important. (I am even not able to do this, I do not know enough about all legal issues in this conflict, but I read a little bit about it before my trip to Israel as I always do when travelling in areas, where is a conflict).

I hope one day there will be peace in this region

This being a travel forum, it is indeed very important to base everything on facts, and to clearly inform travelers whether the site they are inquiring about is located in Israel, in the Palestinian territory or in the Golan Heights.

#27 (catw)

This being a travel forum, it is indeed very important to base everything on facts, and to clearly inform travelers whether the site they are inquiring about is located in Israel, in the Palestinian territory or in the Golan Heights

======================================
It is important to inform them who actually controls the territory involved. These are the relevant facts . Everything else is an irrelevant, and sometimes misleading, political opinion (to the typical traveler). Israel controls the Golan Heights, regardless of one's opinion as to whose territory it is. Same with the Wadi Qelt trail: Israel controls the territory of the trail.

#27,
As always, for every drop of valuable advice you contribute, you drown the potential visitor with buckets of political opinion, irrelevant remarks and misleading and simply false information.

Everyone here (including myself) wrote that the Golan was captured from Syria in '67 and has since been under Israeli control. These are the relevant FACTS. According to your remarkable travel advice, the best way to visit the Yehudiya Canyon, Birkat Ram or Gamla is to land in Damascus Airport and get on the first bus heading southwest.
Oh, and weren't you the one who explained to all the Israelis on this forum that they are not allowed to enter Wadi Qelt unless they are one of the undercover Israeli security agents going for their morning run?