Telegraph

Telegraph misrepresents US position on Israeli settlements


An article in the Daily Telegraph (Donald Trump hunts for votes in the occupied West Bank, Sept. 18th) included the following paragraphs:

telegraph-settlements

However, unlike the EU, the US does not characterize the settlements as “illegal”.  Rather, since the early 80s, the US has been characterizing them as “illegitimate”, but not “illegal” – a fact noted at the Telegraph in previous reports.

In fact, only a few days ago, The Telegraph published an AP story on the new US aid deal to Israel which included the following passage:

The Palestinians have demanded that construction stop before restarting peace talks, and the US considers the settlements illegitimate.

In 2013, the New York Times issued a correction to their initial false characterization of the US position, correctly noting that Washington has taken no position on the ‘legality’ of the settlements.

Earlier today, we tweeted the Telegraph journalist responsible for the report, Raf Sanchez:

We also were in touch with Telegraph editors regarding the error and will update this post when we’ve received a reply. 

75 replies »

  1. No other country has illegal, or illegitimate, settlements or activity anywhere else in the world. I wonder why.

    “Deep concern” = Incredible Bullshit Built to Pacify Assholes

    • External if you read the article you will note that it is about a question of whether the U.S. characterizes the settlements as illegitimate rather than illegal as was claimed by the Telegraph report.

      For some reason, known only to yourself, you wish to introduce the term immoral.

      To save you asking I do not regard the settlements as, illegitimate, illegal, or immoral.

      • The building of those communities is none of those things.
        Certain europeans have been mischaracterizing what constitutes the law in this case for so long now I doubt they possess the capacity any longer to recognize it. The US is not far behind by calling these communities “illegitimate.” As koufaxmitzvah has pointed out, where else in the world are communities referred to in this way? At most, the law is fuzzy about the legal sovereignty question in this case, yet everyone it seems is willing to award it to a sovereign which never existed based on zero legal precedents. Yet they go on and on, squealing like pigs about international law.

        • The law is not fuzzy. The law – if we were to accept the moronic premiss that there is such an animal as ‘international law’ in the first place – says nothing whatsoever about the alleged ‘illegality’ of Jews living in J&S.

      • My question is why Adam thinks it is an achievement to change one negative to another,even though it is technically correct.

        • External your ‘question’ is based on the premise that Adam accepts any of those epithets to characterise the settlements.

          Once again you, obviously, need reminding that the article is about a report in the Telegraph which incorrectly claims that the US characterises the settlements as illegal. Which correction I note that you accept even though you grudgingly refer to it as being ‘technically correct’.

          • il·le·git·i·mate

            ˌiləˈjidəmət

            adjective

            not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.

            synonyms: illegal, unlawful, illicit, criminal, felonious; unlicensed, unauthorized, unsanctioned; prohibited, outlawed, banned, forbidden, proscribed; fraudulent, corrupt, dishonest; malfeasance.

            • Very kind of you External, but, if I ever need to research the meaning of a word in the English language I’ll consult the O.E.D.

              You are still flip-flopping about like a dying fish and making about as much sense.

                • Of course you can ask Webber.
                  And I shall answer your question with all the speed you have answered the questions I have put to you on this website.

                    • Interesting Webber that you regard a statement of fact as being childish.
                      A clear indication of your lack of wit or vocabulary, and shows yet again what a pompous little arse you are.

                    • OK. Still waiting to hear your understanding of the word ‘illegitimate’, although I do understand that it’s much easier for you to derail the discussion rather than concede you have no idea.

                    • Webber although you have yet to reply to many questions I have put to you, you expect a prompt reply.
                      Another sign of your immaturity, what are you going to do next throw a temper tantrum?
                      Stamp your little feet and demand a reply because in your own imagination you are a journalist?

                      If you had bothered to read the thread you would have noticed that I do not accept that the ‘settlements’ are either ‘illegal’ or ‘illegitimate’ or ‘immoral’ So the answer is ask those who do use the term, why they use it and what they mean by it.
                      Is the answer too complicated for you to understand?

                • How about using the blander term Controversial.

                  Controversial is what Israel is doing in the West Bank. Not illegal. Not illegitimate.

                  Want to know what’s illegal? Stabbing people in the street. Want to know what’s illegitimate? Making agreements and then going back on them.

                  What Israel is doing in the West Bank can be considered Controversial because it is definitely legal and not illegitimate for a country to build houses for people who need them.

                • Webber,
                  Are you conducting interviews again? If so, why “in this context” as opposed to other contexts or even generally? In fact, why don’t you just state what you think, instead, by telling us what you think it means “in this context?”

                  I believe that referring to these communities as illegal is an illegitimate form of criticism. What do you think ‘illegitimate’ means in this context?

                  • I think, in this context, that ‘illegitimate’ and ‘illegal’ mean functionally the same thing. I can’t think of a material difference between them. I can’t think of why someone would accept something illegitimate any more than they would accept something illegal.

                    What do you think about the word ‘illegitimate’ used to describe settlements?

                    • I think it’s a bunch of diplomatese. I think the US government is aware that the idea of illegality is problematic, and that it singles out Israel and only Israel amongst the nations of the world involved in *land disputes for opprobrium, and is the result of decades of one-sided politicking by those who hate the Jews, because as we say “them’s just the facts.” For the European left hand-maidens of the Arab (Islamic) cause in “Palestinian clothing” as well as the tradition of antisemitism in Europe any legal principle they can hang their hat on will do, no matter how far the law must be stretched to make it seem plausible. But this has really far more to do with old habits and desires of both Europeans and Arabs (Islam). Objection to Jewish communities on historically Jewish land and legal Jewish private property is not a legal cause, it’s a political one – the organization of politics against the Jews, otherwise known as antisemitism. The objections at their core have absolutely zip and zero to do with any lofty legal principles. The sooner you learn that, young man, the better.

                      * The notion that this is merely some land dispute is dubious at best.

                    • “I think, in this context, that ‘illegitimate’ and ‘illegal’ mean functionally the same thing.”

                      And by Context, you mean the happenings in Israel. Which as we know is covered in biased fashion by Western Euros who find it difficult to give the full story, as well as the proper context (see what I did there) in terms of the capital city of Israel, which is Jerusalem.

                      Context means so much when used right, is that it?

                    • What Jeff said. This hits the nail squarely on the head.
                      Personally, I would go further, and say that there is no relevant law that can be stretched to cover this situation. Nil. Zilch. Nada. Efes.

                    • OK, but to be fair, the International Court of Justice (to which Israel is a voluntary signatory) thinks otherwise and has published a reasoned judgment to that effect, having first invited Israel to provide legal submissions.

                    • Is that the political kangaroo court that thinks – and this is stretching the word ‘think’ to its utmost – that the Green Line is legally an international border?
                      LOL.

                    • “OK, but to be fair, the International Court of Justice (to which Israel is a voluntary signatory) thinks otherwise and has published a reasoned judgment to that effect, having first invited Israel to provide legal submissions.”

                      Oh, I see. Israel joined the court and then petitioned it to help it decide where its borders are?

                      Wait, that’s not what you said. You are saying that the court decided to decide where Israel’s borders are and ‘invited’ Israel to prove them wrong. How nice of them. The point here is that Israel never asked the court to decide where its borders are, did it? Which brings us to the question on whose behalf were they deciding this, and do they really have the power to decide such things and impose such judgments on sovereign states who haven’t asked for their help? Help that goes against previous agreements signed by the parties in involved. I would say no, and I think I might be in good legal company on that. And what could they be basing their assertion on? Israel and Jordan agreed (mostly at Jordan’s insistence) in 1949 that the green line was merely an armistice line and definitely not a border. Agreed to and signed by the two parties, sovereign states, in a conflict. Law is made through such agreements.

                      Having a ‘reasoned argument’ is not enough. It must be a lawful argument.

                    • No, Israel decided to join the court and thus accepted the court’s jurisdiction. She got ‘taken to court’, in the same way that I might get taken to court if someone accuses me (rightly or wrongly) of running over their child. That doesn’t mean I asked the court to accuse me of running over a child. That’s not how courts work. You know this, you’re not an idiot.

                      If Israel didn’t want to be part of the ICJ system she shouldn’t have joined it. And if Israel only wanted to be part of the ICJ system on condition that it never made any findings adverse to her, then she was very stupid.

                    • Webber you seem to be placing a lot of faith in this alleged judgement of the ICJ.
                      What was the date of this judgement?

                      Do you have a link to this alleged judgement, if so provide it so that those who wish to can read it for themselves.

                    • Webber yes I was already aware of the existence of an ADVISORY OPINION by the ICJ about the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”
                      I am also aware that there were dissenting Judges who voted against the OPINION given.

                      The relevance of an ADVISORY OPINION from over a decade ago to the topic of this thread, or your extremely fatuous analogy about ” ‘taken to court’, in the same way that I might get taken to court if someone accuses me (rightly or wrongly) of running over their child.” clearly demonstrates that you are a clown with very little knowledge who should not under any circumstances be taken seriously.

                    • Webber for the reasons given in my post above, i.e. “clearly demonstrates that you are a clown with very little knowledge who should not under any circumstances be taken seriously.” there will be no further reply, as I have no desire to waste more of my time on the likes of you.

                    • Webber,

                      I know you are trying to be smart, but you’re clearly not there yet.

                      “No, Israel decided to join the court and thus accepted the court’s jurisdiction. She got ‘taken to court’, in the same way that I might get taken to court if someone accuses me (rightly or wrongly) of running over their child.”

                      She got taken to court? As in, I’m using the passive voice to avoid certain complications?

                      1. Clearly Israel does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction in this matter. How are you sure that the court has such jurisdiction in said matter?

                      2. Such a decision flies in the face of international treaties and agreements, e.g., agreements witnessed by the quartet, agreements signed by the PA, and let’s not forget UNSC 242 & 338. Can a European court override decisions of the UN security council, and contracts entered into voluntarily by the parties involved?

                    • 1. Why did Israel sign up to the ICJ Statute if she didn’t want the court to have the authority to make rulings as to her behaviour in matters of international law?
                      2. Obviously there’s disagreement around the law, but the international judges *who Israel agreed were competent to decide the question* reached a decision. You’re free to disagree with them, but don’t pretend that they have literally no case because we both know that they do. (Also it’s not “a European court”.)

                    • ” don’t pretend that they have literally no case because we both know that they do. ”

                      I don’t know what that means, “literally no case.” Sure they have a case. Everyone has a case. They just don’t have a good one, and you never answered my questions. And please don’t be so presumptive to tell me what we both know. You can pretend that your International Court isn’t european, and you can pretend that it doesn’t act out of political bias. You can pretend that UNGA resolutions are binding law passed by an international legislature if you like. You’re already pretending that Jews living on historically Jewish land are usurpers and colonizers of “indigenous Palestinian land.” You can pretend that the long war of the Middle East’s Arab majority to rid itself of an independent, sovereign and equal tiny Jewish minority is a fight for human rights sponsored by progressive Arab muslim snow flakes and bunny rabbits who have been suffering under the yoke of western imperialism for century after century, or that Israel is responsible for the mayhem and is responsible for Arabs rejecting statehood repeatedly, and inciting their people to crude Jew hatred and outright murder, but I’m not buying it, because it just ain’t so.

                    • If the ICJ (which isn’t a European court in any sense, and I just don’t know what can possibly have led you to such an erroneous conclusion) is politically biased then why did Israel voluntarily sign up to it? Seems odd.

                    • Webber why do you think the UK’s Government view on whether the ICJ should hear this case was this?

                      “The UK’s submission to the ICJ had urged the Court not to hear this case and to
                      consider what they would have to take account of in order to decide the case
                      properly: including the nature and severity of the threat of terrorism (requiring an
                      analysis of the attacks on Israeli targets in recent years), and the likely impact of the
                      Wall both on such terrorist attacks as well as on the Palestinian population in
                      general.”

                      Do you disagree with the view of the UK’s Government, and if so why?

                    • Yes, I do disagree with the view of the UK’s government, because I don’t think they were valid reasons for the ICJ not to hear the case. They’re points in Israel’s favour, undoubtedly, but why do those things mean that the ICJ shouldn’t even consider the matter?

                      Still waiting to hear why you disagree with the ICJ’s decision, by the way.

                    • No, when I asked you the question, you said:

                      “Webber for the reasons given in my post above, i.e. ‘clearly demonstrates that you are a clown with very little knowledge who should not under any circumstances be taken seriously.’ there will be no further reply, as I have no desire to waste more of my time on the likes of you.”

                      That’s not an answer.

                    • Webber you decide on the content of the question you wish to put to me and I decide on the content of the answer I wish to give.
                      You do not get to decide the content of both.
                      If you ever live long enough to become an adult you will realise this.

                    • Webber there maybe occasions when I am indeed silly.

                      But I am most definitely not silly enough to believe that a) you are a journalist,
                      or b) that you should be taken seriously.

                    • No Webber just because you claim to be a journalist that does not make it a fact that you are one.
                      Based on the poorly researched and opinionated drivel you write not only here but also in other places you are far from being a journalist.
                      Just a deluded little boy who mistakenly believes that because he cobbles together a few sentences on websites he has become a journalist.

                    • Farmer at least you are consistent in that you are not only an anti-Semite you are stupid as are the rest of your ilk.

                      “..unable to correct Mr. Webbers “poorly researched and opinionated drivel”.”
                      Farmer you moron you do not correct the poorly researched and opinionated drivel that the boy Webber scrawls you toss it in the waste bin where it belongs.

                    • Farmer on two occasions you have mentioned that I am using a script.
                      Who is writing, and supplying me with, this alleged script?
                      Why would they give this alleged script to me?

                    • Webber, which part of “This absurd jumped-up political kangaroo ‘court’ was too ignorant to know that the Green Line was never an international border in the *legal* sense of this term” is too hard for your tiny brain to grasp?

                    • I don’t have any trouble grasping it. I just think it’s a vast oversimplification, by someone who either hasn’t read or can’t understand the detail of the ICJ’s judgment.

                      If the ICJ is a jumped-up political kangaroo court, then Israel made a grave mistake in choosing to join it, and an even graver mistake in not withdrawing from it since.

                    • It’s not an ‘over-simplification’. It’s a fundamental principle in law that you don’t base a judgment on the negation of truth, or in simpler terms for little boy Webber: you don’t talk utter ignorant crap. The ‘conclusions’ were drawn from a complete fallacy and idiotic myth, namely that the GN was ever an international ‘border’. It would have had to have been an i.b. before the next logical and legal step could be taken. The whole edifice built on that fallacy is i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t c-r-a-p.
                      Israel choosing to have anything to do with these morons is another matter entirely, and was probably done for reasons of realpolitik in the first instance.

                    • Well, of course, John, I do realise that you’re always right and, therefore, anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong. But tell that to successive Israeli governments. They chose to hand decision-making power to the ICJ. Not me.

    • Of course! Would you rather be accused of doing something immoral, or illegal. One would mean praying more, the other going to prison.

    • Immoral to house people? Immoral to build refuge from war? 3% of kept WB land provides a physical boundary for the state that had been attacked by warring armies 5 times in 70 years.

      And External wonders why he’s considered an tone deaf and belligerent asshole? Is that it?

      • I hope your use of the term “WB” stands for Warner Bros. rather than the illegitimate name for Judea and Samaria imposed by Jordan.

          • As in ….
            illegitimate –
            not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.
            “defending workers against illegitimate managerial practices”
            synonyms: illegal, unlawful, illicit, against the law, criminal, lawbreaking, actionable, felonious; unlicensed, unauthorized, unsanctioned, unwarranted, unofficial, banned, forbidden, barred, prohibited, outlawed, interdicted, proscribed, not allowed, not permitted, against the rules, contraband, black-market, under the counter, bootleg;
            fraudulent, corrupt, dishonest, dishonourable;
            verboten;
            malfeasant;
            informalcrooked, shady;
            informalbent, dodgy