Zoning
A nonconforming use is when there's a conflict between existing property use and a new zoning law. It's common for the existing use or qualities of a property to conflict with new zoning regulations. Two ways a use may be nonconforming are:
- The nature or a characteristic of a building doesn't meet zoning laws
- The activity going on in the building doesn't conform to the law
OK, maybe Israel has a zoning issue after all, for nonconforming use of land. But it's not a local issue:
The establishment of Israeli settlements are held to constitute a transfer of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territories and as such are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1998–1999) said "the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
In 2004 the International Court of Justice, in an advisory, non-binding opinion—noted that the Security Council had described Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court also concluded that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law and that all the States parties to the Geneva Convention are under an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international law as embodied in the Convention.
Israel denies that the Israeli settlements are in breach of any international laws. The Israeli Supreme Court has yet to rule decisively on settlement legality under the Geneva Convention.
*****
Israel captured and occupied the territories [Gaza Strip and West Bank] in the 1967 Six-Day War. In 1980 Israel annexed East Jerusalem, but United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared it "null and void" and required that it be rescinded, stating that it was a violation of international law. The annexation lacks international recognition.
Israel's legal rationale for the annexation of East Jerusalem principally revolves around the notion that conquest resulting from a defensive use of force entitles the victor to unilaterally annex occupied territory. However, this reasoning has not been recognized by any other country, since unilateral annexation of territory conquered during war, even in defensive conquest, is prohibited by customary and conventional international law.
"I would take the opposite approach, by the way."
Well, well... the foreign relations expert doesn't acknowledge the Geneva Convention or the United Nations Security Council. Sarah Palin's whims would override international law and all the conventions agreed by the international community. [Does she think the 10th Amendment applies to Israel?]
Sarah Palin didn't know how to run Wasilla and had to hire a city manager. She didn't know how to run Alaska and had a shadow governor (marginally less incompetent then herself). She abused her power on more than one occasion and the ethics rules didn't apply to her...
Sarah Palin didn't know "what is it exactly that the VP does everyday day" and she definitely doesn't have a clue about what the job of an elected president of a country (any country) entails. Under Sarah Palin, the US would be a rogue state. Sarah seems to believe that the executive is the only power in the country, she wouldn't need a Secretary of State, the Congress, the Senate or the Supreme Court - "I would do this, I would do that" - all in the vacuum of her own deluded, misguided, ignorant mind...
