Yaakov, the settlements are illegal only in your interpretation and that of others who are desperate to prove it so despite the facts. I challenge anyone to quote a single UNSC resolution referring to the settlements as ?illegal?. In its legal language the UNSC defines the settlements as ?having no legal validity?. Now, for those ignoramuses who think that these two are one and the same thing, please refer to the definitions of both. ?Illegality? means directly contradicting an EXISTING law, that is a law that is already on the books, that makes something illegal, an indictable offence and thus subject to remediation. ?No legal validity?, according to its definition, is synonymous with lack of one of the following: authenticity, authority, correctness, force, forcefulness, genuineness, gravitas, lawfulness, legal force, legality, legitimacy, legitimateness. It is like a common law marriage that exists but is not legally recognized. However, it does not mean that entities with no legal validity contradict any existing law. It only means that their status in not permanent and they must be legalized and are subject to future changes, modifications that may include removal, but not yet. So, please stop spreading stupid propaganda. The settlements are NOT ILLEGAL.
Turkey’s EU minister: Friendly ties between Russia and Turkey to be maintained (Reuters)
from the article: Top U.S. official: We won't accept partial settlement freeze
The bombing of the Russian airliner reflects the long conflict between Islamic extremists and Egypt that has spread south to the coastal fantasy land.21:26 25.11.15 | 1 comments