The Illegal-Settlements Myth

[dayag]

I saw a really good article concerning the myth that the settlements are illegal by David M. Phillips that I wanted to share with the forum.



The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex nature of the specific legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty has been rendered against settlement policy. There can be no doubt that this avalanche of negative opinion has been deeply influenced by the settlements’ unpopularity around the world and even within Israel itself. Yet, while one may debate the wisdom of Israeli settlements, the idea that they are imprudent is quite different from branding them as illegal. Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab� land. Followed to its logical conclusion�as some have done�this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself.

These arguments date back to the aftermath of the Six-Day War. When Israel went into battle in June 1967, its objective was clear: to remove the Arab military threat to its existence. Following its victory, the Jewish state faced a new challenge: what to do with the territorial fruits of that triumph. While many Israelis assumed that the overwhelming nature of their victory would shock the Arab world into coming to terms with their legitimacy and making peace, they would soon be disabused of this belief. At the end of August 1967, the heads of eight countries, including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan (all of which lost land as the result of their failed policy of confrontation with Israel), met at a summit in Khartoum, Sudan, and agreed to the three principles that were to guide the Arab world’s postwar stands: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. Though many Israelis hoped to trade most if not all the conquered lands for peace, they would have no takers. This set the stage for decades of their nation’s control of these territories.

The attachment of Israelis to the newly unified city of Jerusalem led to its quick annexation, and Jewish neighborhoods were planted on its flanks in the hope that this would render unification irrevocable. A similar motivation for returning Jewish life to the West Bank, the place where Jewish history began�albeit one that did not reflect the same strong consensus as that which underpinned the drive to hold on to Jerusalem�led to the fitful process that, over the course of the next several decades, produced numerous Jewish settlements throughout this area for a variety of reasons, including strategic, historical and/or religious considerations. In contrast, settlements created by Israel in the Egyptian Sinai or the Syrian Golan were primarily based initially on the strategic value of the terrain.

Over the course of the years to come, there was little dispute about Egypt’s sovereign right to the Sinai, and it was eventually returned after Nasser’s successor Anwar Sadat broke the Arab consensus and made peace with Israel. Though the rulers of Syria have, to date, preferred the continuance of belligerency to a similar decision to end the conflict, the question of their right to the return of the Golan in the event of peace seems to hinge more on the nature of the regime in Damascus than any dispute about the provenance of Syria’s title to the land.

The question of the legal status of the West Bank, as well as Jerusalem, is not so easily resolved. To understand why this is the case, we must first revisit the history of the region in the 20th century.

Though routinely referred to nowadays as “Palestinian� land, at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term. For several hundred years leading up to World War I, all of Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan, and the putative state of Palestine were merely provinces of the Ottoman Empire. After British-led Allied troops routed the Turks from the country in 1917-18, the League of Nations blessed Britain’s occupation with a document that gave the British conditional control granted under a mandate. It empowered Britain to facilitate the creation of a “Jewish National Home� while respecting the rights of the native Arab population. British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill later partitioned the mandate in 1922 and gave the East Bank of the Jordan to his country’s Hashemite Arab allies, who created the Kingdom of Jordan there under British tutelage.

Following World War II, the League of Nations’ successor, the United Nations, voted in November 1947 to partition the remaining portion of the land into Arab and Jewish states. While the Jews accepted partition, the Arabs did not, and after the British decamped in May 1948, Jordan joined with four other Arab countries to invade the fledgling Jewish state on the first day of its existence. Though Israel survived the onslaught, the fighting left the Jordanians in control of what would come to be known as the West Bank as well as approximately half of Jerusalem, including the Old City. Those Jewish communities in the West Bank that had existed prior to the Arab invasion were demolished, as was the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.

After the cease-fire that ended Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, Jordan annexed both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But, as was the case when Israel annexed those same parts of the ancient city that it would win back 19 years later, the world largely ignored this attempt to legitimize Jordan’s presence. Only Jordan’s allies Britain and Pakistan recognized its claims of sovereignty. After King Hussein’s disastrous decision to ally himself with Egypt’s Nasser during the prelude to June 1967, Jordan was evicted from the lands it had won in 1948.

This left open the question of the sovereign authority over the West Bank. The legal vacuum in which Israel operated in the West Bank after 1967 was exacerbated by Jordan’s subsequent stubborn refusal to engage in talks about the future of these territories. King Hussein was initially deterred from dealing with the issue by the three “no’s� of Khartoum. Soon enough, he was taught a real-world lesson by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which fomented a bloody civil war against him and his regime in 1970. With the open support of Israel, Hussein survived that threat to his throne, but his desire to reduce rather than enlarge the Palestinian population in his kingdom ultimately led him to disavow any further claim to the lands he had lost in 1967. Eventually, this stance was formalized on July 31, 1988.

Thus, if the charge that Israel’s hold on the territories is illegal is based on the charge of theft from its previous owners, Jordan’s own illegitimacy on matters of legal title and its subsequent withdrawal from the fray makes that legal case a losing one. Well before Jordan’s renunciation, Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School and undersecretary of state for political affairs in 1967 during the Six-Day War, argued that the West Bank should be considered “unallocated territory,� once part of the Ottoman Empire. From this perspective, Israel, rather than simply “a belligerent occupant,� had the status of a “claimant to the territory.�

To Rostow, “Jews have a right to settle in it under the Mandate,� a right he declared to be “unchallengeable as a matter of law.� In accord with these views, Israel has historically characterized the West Bank as “disputed territory� (although some senior government officials have more recently begun to use the term “occupied territory�).

Because neither Great Britain, as the former trustee under the League of Nations mandate, nor the since deceased Ottoman Empire�the former sovereigns prior to the Jordanians�is desirous or capable of standing up as the injured party to put Israel in the dock, we must therefore ask: On what points of law does the case against Israel stand?



source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-illegal-settlements-myth-15295

[dayag]

cont.



International-law arguments against the settlements have rested primarily upon two sources. First are the 1907 Hague Regulations, whose provisions are primarily designed to protect the interests of a temporarily ousted sovereign in the context of a short-term occupation. Second is the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, the first international agreement designed specifically to protect civilians during wartime.

While Israel was not and is not a party to the Hague Regulations, the Israeli Supreme Court has generally regarded its provisions as part of customary international law (that is, law generally observed by nations even if they have not signed an international agreement to that effect) and hence applicable to Israel. The regulations are transparently geared toward short-term occupations during which a peace treaty is negotiated between the victorious and defeated nations. The “no’s” of Khartoum signaled that there would be no quick negotiations.

Nonetheless, Israel established and maintains a military administration overseeing the West Bank in accordance with the Hague Regulations, probably the only military power since World War II other than the United States (in Iraq) that has done so. For example, consistent with Article 43 of the Regulations, which calls on the occupant to “respect, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country,” Israel has for the most part continued to follow Jordanian law in the West Bank, despite its position that Jordan itself had illegally occupied it. Israel’s stance has been criticized as contradictory, but general continuance of Jordanian law can be justified on grounds of legal stability and long-term reliance reflected in most legal systems, including international law.

Article 46 of the Hague Regulations bars an occupying power from confiscating private property. And it is on this point that the loudest cries against the settlements have been based. Israel did requisition land from private Arab owners to establish some early settlements, but requisitioning differs from confiscation (compensation is paid for use of the land), and the establishment of these settlements was based on military necessity. In a 1979 case, Ayyub v. Minister of Defense, the Israeli Supreme Court considered whether military authorities could requisition private property for a civilian settlement, Beth El, on proof of military necessity. The theoretical and, in that specific case, actual answers were affirmative. But in another seminal decision the same year, Dwaikat v. Israel, known as the Elon Moreh case, the court more deeply explored the definition of military necessity and rejected the tendered evidence in that case because the military had only later acquiesced in the establishment of the Elon Moreh settlement by its inhabitants. The court’s decision effectively precluded further requisitioning of Palestinian privately held land for civilian settlements.
After the Elon Moreh case, all Israeli settlements legally authorized by the Israeli Military Administration (a category that, by definition, excludes “illegal outposts” constructed without prior authorization or subsequent acceptance) have been constructed either on lands that Israel characterizes as state-owned or “public” or, in a small minority of cases, on land purchased by Jews from Arabs after 1967. The term “public land” includes uncultivated rural land not registered in anyone’s name and land owned by absentee owners, both categories of public land under Jordanian and Ottoman law. Inversely, the term excludes land registered in the name of someone other than an absentee owner (regardless of whether the land is presently cultivated), land to which a title deed exists (even if the deed is unregistered), and land held by prescriptive use. The last stipulation requires continuous use of the land for a period of 10 years.

Israel’s characterization of certain lands as “state” or “public” has provoked considerable controversy. In one of the most detailed and cited critiques, B’Tselem, the Israeli human-rights group, concedes that 90 percent of the settlements have been established on what is nominally “state” land but argues that approximately 40 percent of the West Bank now falls within that category. That would represent a vast expansion of the 16 percent of the West Bank that had been considered public under Jordanian control.

As B’Tselem acknowledges, however, the vast majority of this land is in the Jordan Valley, which, with the primary exception of the city of Jericho, was barely populated by Palestinian Arabs prior to 1967 (which explains why such land was both unregistered and uncultivated). The percentage may also be on the high side because of the inclusion of certain Jerusalem neighborhoods in B’Tselem’s calculations. Regardless of the gross percentage, according to B’Tselem’s own statistics, only approximately 5 percent of the West Bank is within settlement “municipal boundaries,” and a much, much smaller percentage of land, 1.7 percent, is developed.

One of B’Tselem’s most frequently cited publications argues that Ma’aleh Adumim, the largest Israeli settlement on the West Bank, several kilometers to the east of Jerusalem, sits on territory taken from five Palestinian Arab villages and therefore amounts to an expropriation. But because the villagers lack registered title or even unregistered deeds, B’Tselem argues that the nomadic Jahalin Bedouin, who intermittently camp and graze their livestock on land to the east of Jerusalem going down to the Dead Sea, have effectively earned the right of title to the land because of their prescriptive use.

Perhaps. But it is far from clear how a Bedouin right to the land has anything to do with the legal claim of Palestinian villagers 60 years earlier. B’Tselem offers this rather astonishing argument: “They grazed on village land in accordance with lease agreements (at times symbolic) with the landowners—including landowners from the villages of Abu Dis and al’Izariyyeh.” At times symbolic!
In other words, only Palestinian Arab villages may be constructed and expanded on the land because Bedouin have occasionally grazed their flocks thereon pursuant to the implied consent of Palestinian villagers. But those villagers only have a right to the land because of its use by the Bedouin!

The sophistry here masks a deeper issue. Aside from its circularity, B’Tselem’s argument equates whatever rights Bedouin may have with the rights of sedentary Arab villages on the outskirts of Jerusalem. The only reason for such an equation is that both are Arabs and not Jews. B’Tselem’s assertion that the land belongs to these villages collapses into the contention that only Arabs, not Jews, have the right to own and use these lands.


source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-illegal-settlements-myth-15295

[dayag]

cont.



Settlement opponents more frequently cite the Fourth Geneva Convention these days for their legal arguments. They specifically charge that the settlements violate Article 49(6), which states: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.”

Frequently, this sentence is cited as if its meaning is transparent and its application to the establishment of Israeli settlements beyond dispute. Neither is the case.

To settlement opponents, the word “transfer” in Article 49(6) connotes that any transfer of the occupying power’s civilian population, voluntary or involuntary, is prohibited. However, the first paragraph of Article 49 complicates that case. It reads: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, 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.” Unquestionably, any forcible transfer of populations is illegal. But what about voluntary movements with the antecedent permission or subsequent acquiescence by the occupant?

Even settlement opponents concede that many settlements closest to Palestinian population areas, on the central mountain range of the West Bank, were built without government permission and often contrary to governmental policy; their continued existence forced the government to recognize the settlement as an existing fact. Given this history, it is questionable to claim that Israel “transferred” those settlers.

The response of settlement critics is that certain tax subsidies and other benefits conferred by the Israeli government or the World Zionist Organization that may have encouraged Jews to settle in the West Bank constructively amounts to a “transfer.” This interpretation would have greater traction under a l977 protocol to the Geneva Convention or under the Treaty of Rome, which established the International Criminal Court, but Israel is a signatory to neither (both covenants were heavily influenced by anti-Israel nongovernmental organizations and the PLO).

To the extent that a violation of Article 49(6) depends upon the distinction between the voluntary and involuntary movement of people, the inclusion of “forcible” in Article 49(1) but not in 49(6) makes a different interpretation not only plausible but more credible. It’s a matter of simple grammar that when similar language is used in several different paragraphs of the same provision, modifying language is omitted in later paragraphs because the modifier is understood. To Julius Stone, an international-law scholar, “the word ‘transfer’ [in 49(6)] in itself implies that the movement is not voluntary on the part of the persons concerned, but a magisterial act of the state concerned.”

To understand the phraseology used in Article 49(1), “individual or mass forcible transfers,” as well as one plausible origin of Article 49(6), some background is necessary.

According to Stone, discussions at the 1949 Geneva Diplomatic Conference “were dominated by a common horror of the evils caused by the recent World War and a determination to lessen the sufferings of war victims.” The various nations’ delegates considered a draft of the convention produced at a conference of the Red Cross Societies held in Stockholm during August 1948. Final Article 49 was the renumbered and revised successor to Article 45 of the Stockholm Draft.

At a legal subcommittee meeting at Stockholm seemingly attended by fewer than 10 active participants, a Danish Jew named Georg Cohn proposed the sentence, albeit with a wider scope, that became Article 49(6). Cohn’s initial sentence, in French, would have prohibited an occupying power from deporting or transferring a “part of its own inhabitants or the inhabitants of another territory which it occupies” into the occupied territory.

According to Cohn’s own report to the Danish foreign ministry, his language was directed at an event the aspects of which were little known outside Scandinavia. In the waning days of World War II, as the Russian military advanced westward through the Baltic states and the Germans retreated, the Germans rightly feared that the Russians would take retribution on all German citizens and ethnic Germans who had collaborated with the Nazis. The Germans evacuated more than 2 million people into boats, hoping to land them in northern Germany.

Many of the ports had been bombed, however, and the Germans began unloading the people wherever they could, including several hundred thousand people into Copenhagen. In the spring of 1945, German children comprised a majority of the pupils in Copenhagen’s schools. The Danes despised them and placed them in concentration camps after the war, waiting to deport them to Germany as fast as possible. That goal had still not been accomplished in August 1948, at the time of the Stockholm conference.

Cohn may also have been motivated to propose the language that later became Article 49(6) in light of his own strong Jewish identity. The original language on deportations presented to the Stockholm conference would not have prevented Germany from deporting its own Jews to slave and extermination camps in Poland and other occupied countries, nor would it have prevented the Germans from sending Danish Jews found in Germany to concentration camps in occupied territories, sending either Hungarian or Italian Jews to Auschwitz, and/or from transplanting Germans to portions of Poland and other occupied countries. Cohn’s original language would have criminalized all these practices.

Other participants in Stockholm, led by Albert J. Clattenburg Jr. of the United States, thought Cohn’s provision too broad. The phrase “or the inhabitants of another territory which it occupies” was deleted, and “civil” was inserted before “inhabitants.”
At the Geneva Conference itself, both the Final Report of the Committee charged with drafting the text of the 4th Convention for consideration by the delegates as well as comments by delegates generally differentiated between transfers that were voluntary and therefore permitted and those that were involuntary and therefore prohibited. As the Final Report to the delegates stated while explaining the differences between various articles dealing with the right of an occupying power to evacuate an area, primarily in the interest of the security of the civilian population’s security: “Although there was general unanimity in condemning such deportations as took place during the recent war, the phrase at the beginning of Article 45 caused some trouble. In the end the Committee had decided on a wording that prohibits individual or mass forcible removals as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to any other country, but which permits voluntary transfers.”

That is a key reason why Julius Stone termed the anti-settlement interpretation “an irony bordering on the absurd” and commented: “Ignoring the overall purpose of Article 49, which would inter alia protect the population of the State of Israel from being removed against their will into the occupied territory, it is now sought to be interpreted so as to impose on the Israel government a duty to prevent any Jewish individual from voluntarily taking up residence in that area.”

There is simply no comparison between the establishment and population of Israeli settlements and the Nazi atrocities that led to the Geneva Convention. The settlements are also a far cry from policies implemented by the Soviet Union in the late 1940s and early 1950s to alter the ethnic makeup of the Baltic states by initially deporting hundreds of thousands of people and encouraging Russian immigration.


source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-illegal-settlements-myth-15295

[dayag]

cont.




Nor can they be compared to the efforts by China to alter the ethnic makeup of Tibet by forcibly scattering its native population and moving Chinese into Tibetan territory. Israel’s settlement policies are also not comparable to the campaign by Morocco to alter the ethnic makeup of the Western Sahara by transferring Moroccan Arabs to displace the native Saharans, who now huddle in refugee camps in Algeria, or to the variety of population displacements that occurred in the various parts of the former Yugoslavia.

All these would seem to fit the offense described in Article 49(6) precisely. Yet finding references to the application of Article 49(6) to nations other than Israel is like looking for a needle in a haystack. What distinguishes a system of “law” from arbitrary systems of control is that similar situations are handled alike. A system where legal principles are applied only when it suits the political tastes of anti-Israel elites is one that has lost all credibility. The loose use of international law, disproportionately applied to Israel, undermines the notion that this is “law” entitled to authoritative weight in the first place.

Julius Stone referred to the absurdity of considering the establishment of Israeli settlements as violating Article 49(6):
We would have to say that the effect of Article 49(6) is to impose an obligation on the State of Israel to ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever judenrein. Irony would thus be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that the West Bank must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context exclude so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6).

Stone’s pointed critique of what has since become “accepted” wisdom invites a hypothetical: Suppose a group of Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of Israel requested permission to establish a community on the West Bank. Further, assume that Israel facilitated the community’s establishment, without the loss of their citizenship, on land purchased from other Palestinian Arabs (not citizens of Israel) or on state land. Would establishment of this settlement violate Article 49(6)? If not, how can one distinguish the hypothetical Arab settlements from Jewish settlements?

Concluding that Israeli settlements violate Article 49(6) also overlooks the Jewish communities that existed before the creation of the state in areas occupied by today’s Israeli settlements, for example, in Hebron and the Etzion bloc outside Jerusalem. These Jewish communities were destroyed by Arab armies, militias, and rioters, and, as in the case of Hebron, the community’s population was slaughtered. Is it sensible to interpret Article 49 to bar the reconstitution of Jewish communities that were destroyed through aggression and slaughter? If so, the international law of occupation runs the risk of freezing one occupier’s conduct in place, no matter how unlawful.

The idea that the creation of new settlements or that the expansion of ones already in place is an act of bad faith on the part of various Israeli governments may seem without question to those who believe those settlements constitute an obstacle to the ever elusive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whether this argument is well-founded or not, the willingness of Israel’s critics to assert that these communities are not merely wrong-headed but a violation of international law escalates the debate over their existence from a dispute about policy into one in which the Jewish state itself can be labeled as an international outlaw. The ultimate end of the illicit effort to use international law to delegitimize the settlements is clear—it is the same argument used by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state entirely. Those who consider themselves friends of Israel but opponents of the settlement policy should carefully consider whether, in advancing these illegitimate and specious arguments, they will eventually be unable to resist the logic of the argument that says—falsely and without a shred of supporting evidence from international law itself—that Israel is illegitimate.


source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-illegal-settlements-myth-15295

[Reffo]

The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted ...Very true unfortunately. And I hope that those of us, well meaning Jews who ARE definitely pro Israel realise how badly we dropped the ball in the last few decades ...

How did it happen? We let the extreme left chattering class perpatrate this myth unopposed. They never missed an opportunity to propagate this myth, in their newspaper articles, their radio, on the TV and in their letters to the editor as self evident truth. And what did WE do? We let it go unchallanged or even worse, when some of us challenged it, there were many chiding us not to bother arguing with the likes of them ... I think it was a grave mistake because they convinced everyone, through Gobells like endless repetition, while we were not looking that all the Jewish settlements are "illegal".

I hope we learned our lesson NOT to be complacent again!

[bararallu]

Tel Aviv is a "settlement" too after all, no less than Kiryat Arba or Ariel and the lot who consider our presence in Hebron illegal do so about TA as well. They may not say it now, but they will once the slice of salami is cut and Judea and Samaria are judenrein.

History not withstanding... there is no reason to wallow in the details of a pipe dream. We neither set the rules of "International Law" nor do we enforce them. A small cadre of nations that have the wherewithal to shatter this planet or re-invent it do however.

From our position the laws are utterly arbitrary, and the only thing of import is success, first and foremost winning this war. It is not winning over hearts and minds of those who have little means to help us, even if they'd like to do so, which is always dubious amongst the tribes of man; but to succeed.

Success also means making our small country and meager population outperform the likes of the big boys, and then making the strategic relationships that secure our growth and survival. We need to stop thinking only regionally, as a regional power and as one beholden to the United States. We should consider leveraging our great technological capability, our only true national resource, to give us that very edge to set the rules that we can prosper by.

No International law will protect us from being harmed. The UN and so are fundamentally manipulated by power politics, there is absolutely nothing fair or just about any resolution pro or counter Israel, nearly all being the latter. To work and live under the false hope that someone somewhere is going to make a valid case to people who care and beat the rap (aka make peace with savages), will unfold like a nightmare.

[curlyg]

Argument on the basis of international law is a waste of time, and I say that as a law student who plans to specialise in international law and generally believes in its value. (Go figure).

I'm not yet very familiar with international law but it seems to me that this is a lost cause. The ICJ has already ruled in 2004 that the territories are occupied and the settlements illegal under international law (albeit in an advisory opinion). And given the plethora of UN resolutions concerning the matter I would say that in any case it is settled.

At this point all we can do is disregard international law and find a solution as quickly as we can while securing our interests.

[dayag]

Argument on the basis of international law is a waste of time, and I say that as a law student who plans to specialise in international law and generally believes in its value. (Go figure).

I'm not yet very familiar with international law but it seems to me that this is a lost cause. The ICJ has already ruled in 2004 that the territories are occupied and the settlements illegal under international law (albeit in an advisory opinion). And given the plethora of UN resolutions concerning the matter I would say that in any case it is settled.

At this point all we can do is disregard international law and find a solution as quickly as we can while securing our interests.

Settled by a kangaroo court in which we did not participate nor accept its jurisdiction and non-binding political votes in the UN?

[GratefulFred]

I still find it strange that Britian and Pakistan were the only 2 countries to have supported Jordan's right over parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Talk about a warped UN. Today they'd have approved it overwhelmingly.

[curlyg]

Settled by a kangaroo court in which we did not participate nor accept its jurisdiction and non-binding political votes in the UN?

Those are the bodies that determine international law, yes.

[dayag]

Those are the bodies that determine international law, yes.

Show me where advisory opinions from the ICJ, whose jurisdiction Israel has never accepted, are binding upon it under international law.

Also, only UN Security Council decisions under chapter VII are binding on Israel in International Law.

[curlyg]

Show me where advisory opinions from the ICJ, whose jurisdiction Israel has never accepted, are binding upon it under international law.

Also, only UN Security Council decisions under chapter VII are binding on Israel in International Law.

As I understand it UN resolutions are capable of forming rules of customary international law. Given the extremely large number of resolutions declaring settlement illegal and the overwhelming majority by which they tend to be approved I think it can be said that such a law exists. And the ICJ purported to reach its conclusion on the basis of agreements signed by Israel and customary law.

You would like to claim that the unanimous determination of that court RE settlements is simply wrong, and that your interpretation of international law is actually the correct one. That is a futile exercise, given that Israel alone maintains that position.

We would be wiser to simply acknowledge that here there is a clash between international law and our national interests, and that given that this is a very important issue that goes to the very existence of the state, we are choosing to disregard international law. Of course Israel should not state that publicly, and should continue to argue its case. But in reality this is meaningless since no other state or relevant international body agrees with us.

In any case, international law is not necessarily incorporated into Israeli law. The Knesset may deliberately legislate contrary to international law, in such a way that rebuts the presumption that a point of international law applies. So nothing technically binds us beyond what we so choose, and even Israel's courts would not dispute that.

[dayag]

As I understand it UN resolutions are capable of forming rules of customary international law. Given the extremely large number of resolutions declaring settlement illegal and the overwhelming majority by which they tend to be approved I think it can be said that such a law exists. And the ICJ purported to reach its conclusion on the basis of agreements signed by Israel and customary law.

You would like to claim that the unanimous determination of that court RE settlements is simply wrong, and that your interpretation of international law is actually the correct one. That is a futile exercise, given that Israel alone maintains that position.

We would be wiser to simply acknowledge that here there is a clash between international law and our national interests, and that given that this is a very important issue that goes to the very existence of the state, we are choosing to disregard international law. Of course Israel should not state that publicly, and should continue to argue its case. But in reality this is meaningless since no other state or relevant international body agrees with us.

In any case, international law is not necessarily incorporated into Israeli law. The Knesset may deliberately legislate contrary to international law, in such a way that rebuts the presumption that a point of international law applies. So nothing technically binds us beyond what we so choose, and even Israel's courts would not dispute that.

You truly believe that if you get enough non-binding decisions they become binding in international law?
i.e. non-binding + non-binding + non-binding = binding!

Israel did not participate in the ICJ's hearings. It's arguments were not heard. You side with the ICJ against Israel, but did you even read the article above, Curly?

[Mediocrates]

We would be wiser to simply acknowledge that here there is a clash between international law and our national interests,


By definition ALL international law and national interests diverge. That's essentially the point of international law.

[redcake]

Curly, Since you're planning to specialize in the minutia of International Law, can you explain how conceding Israel is in violation of laws no other nation abides by, will secure Israel's national interests?

You're probably a lot more fascinated with this topic than most of us, and might be in a capacity to argue on Israel's behalf one day, so can you dissect the article itself, and point out where it's wrong, if it is? Most every argument I've heard against Israel hinged on sentence structure in 2 or 3 Resolutions, and ignored the material in this article.

[curlyg]

You truly believe that if you get enough non-binding decisions they become binding in international law?
i.e. non-binding + non-binding + non-binding = binding!

Israel did not participate in the ICJ's hearings. It's arguments were not heard. You side with the ICJ against Israel, but did you even read the article above, Curly?

The non-binding nature of the resolutions is not the point. I am not suggesting that they might be binding because they are resolutions. The might embody a rule of customary law given the overwhelming consensus over the issue. But as I said I am not familiar with international law yet (I have not done any IL courses yet, I'm still in the early stages of my degree). I wasn't saying that this has actually happened, just that according to my basic understanding it is possible. In any case this wasn't really the main gist of my post.

I skimmed the article. I have read these arguments before, I've read some of Prof. Stone's defences of Israel and a number of subsequent critiques of his work. I'm not making a legal judgment against Israel - as I said I'm not yet familiar with international law. But it seems to me that for us, continuing to focus our efforts on international law is pointless. The legal consensus against Israel is quite overwhelming. More importantly the law is irrelevant. If the law required us to accept a Right of Return and withdraw to the green line with no population swap and entirely give away the Old City, which our critics argue it does, then the law is the end of us.


Curly, Since you're planning to specialize in the minutia of International Law, can you explain how conceding Israel is in violation of laws no other nation abides by, will secure Israel's national interests?

It won't, and Israel shouldn't admit to it. Like I said Israel should continue to argue its case in public. But I wouldn't expect it to make any difference.


You're probably a lot more fascinated with this topic than most of us, and might be in a capacity to argue on Israel's behalf one day, so can you dissect the article itself, and point out where it's wrong, if it is? Most every argument I've heard against Israel hinged on sentence structure in 2 or 3 Resolutions, and ignored the material in this article.

I can't, since I'm not familiar with it. But the ruling of the ICJ does deal with the material above if I recall correctly (I read it about a year ago) as do a variety of legal journal articles which can be found online.

And my original reason for studying international law was exactly so that I could argue on Israel's behalf on this basis, though now I'm doubtful it can do any good.

[bararallu]

Make lots of money, and donate to Israeli technology/business incubators. That is our best bet, aside from Aliah. Arguing against fakestinians in the ICJ et cetera is a complete waste of Jewish time.

[curlyg]

You truly believe that if you get enough non-binding decisions they become binding in international law?
i.e. non-binding + non-binding + non-binding = binding!

I just wanted to bring this up again because I've just begun my international law course. The answer I give at this stage is, tentatively, yes. But again I'm only at the beginning of my studies of IL so that may change.

From the ICJ ruling on Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons:


The Court notes that General Assembly resolutions, even if they are not binding, may sometimes have normative value. They can, in certain circumstances, provide evidence important for establishing the existence of a rule or the emergence of an opinio juris. To establish whether this is true of a given General Assembly resolution, it is necessary to look at its content and the conditions of its adoption; it is also necessary to see whether an opinio juris exists as to its normative character. Or a series of resolutions may show the gradual evolution of the opinio juris required for the establishment of a new rule.

And from the Nicaragua case:


opinio juris may, though with all due caution, be deduced from, inter alia, the attitude of the Parties and the attitude of states towards certain General Assembly resolutions ... The effect of consent to the text of such resolutions cannot be understood as merely "reiteration of elucidation" of the treaty commitment undertaken in the Charter. On the contrary, it may be understood as an acceptance of the validity of the rule or set of rules set out in the resolution by themselves.


Re this comment by dayag:


Show me where advisory opinions from the ICJ, whose jurisdiction Israel has never accepted, are binding upon it under international law.

I believe you are mistaken. Israel has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, that is, it has not signed the Rome Statute. It has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ; the ICJ is established under the UN Charter, to which Israel is a signatory. Obviously this is only an advisory opinion so it isn't strictly "binding" but that doesn't change the fact that it is a statement of the almost universally accepted application of international law to Israel's circumstances (challenged essentially only by Israel).

[dayag]

I still think you are incorrect, Curly. Your quotes do not say that these non-binding decisions automatically become binding international law, only that they may or can do so. The majority cannot change existing international law by passing a resolution that contradicts it.

Countries do not vote in the General Assembly based on their understanding of international law, but based on political considerations. The idea that the settlements are illegal is just an oft repeated lie, pushed by countries who mean our destruction.

[uthman7c]

[quote] The ICJ has already ruled in 2004 that the territories are occupied and the settlements illegal under international law (albeit in an advisory opinion). And given the plethora of UN resolutions concerning the matter I would say that in any case it is settled.

ICJ rulings are non-binding and, anyway, the ICJ is merely an arm of the UN controlled by the Arab and Islamic bloc. Nor, has Israel ever been represented on the ICJ.

The binding Palestine Mandate ratified by the League of Nations establishing "Palestine" as the Jewish National Home is the only enforceable document pertaining to the matter of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria

[doppess]

Hey there!

I don't have enough posts to start a new thread so I'll post to this, hope it's ok.

My question is about the Israeli settlements inside West Bank:
picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg)

This is all hypothetical but if there's a peace deal, I've understood there's going to be land swaps near the Green Line to include the Jewish settlements into Israel proper. What will be the situation of the settlement enclaves inside West Bank. What will be their destiny? Are they going to be abandoned or what will become of them. Is there someplace I could read more about this perhaps? What are your opinions on the matter? Let's assume that Israel will still have full control of military related outposts.

[Pleepleus]

Hey there!

I don't have enough posts to start a new thread so I'll post to this, hope it's ok.

My question is about the Israeli settlements inside West Bank:
picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg)

This is all hypothetical but if there's a peace deal, I've understood there's going to be land swaps near the Green Line to include the Jewish settlements into Israel proper. What will be the situation of the settlement enclaves inside West Bank. What will be their destiny? Are they going to be abandoned or what will become of them. Is there someplace I could read more about this perhaps? What are your opinions on the matter? Let's assume that Israel will still have full control of military related outposts.

That is a matter to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. I personally believe it should be up to the individual settlers on the Palestinian side of the hypothetical border to decide whether they want to remain in Palestine or repatriate to Israel.

What's your opinion on the matter, Doppess?

[doppess]

That is a matter to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. I personally believe it should be up to the individual settlers on the Palestinian side of the hypothetical border to decide whether they want to remain in Palestine or repatriate to Israel.

What's your opinion on the matter, Doppess?

I'm not that confident that the settlements and their population could be safe in the new Palestinian state. And those enclaves couldn't be part of Israel either. The two-state model would result in losing them, because no sane Israeli would live in them without the IDF's protection. I can't see any possibility other than abandoning them for the two-state model to succeed. That probably isn't politically or logistically possible, if the population resists it with passion like in the Sinai settlements.

Or is it possible that these settlements simply continue they way of life under Palestinian state in (relative) harmony?

[farmboy]

Or is it possible that these settlements simply continue they way of life under Palestinian state in (relative) harmony?
No
Abbas has said continually, that any Pallestinian state will be devoid of Jews, then christians then any other religion. The arabs are not very big on religious tollerance or womens rights or gay rights or the rights of children. If one does not fit completely within the mold that their muftis see as the perfect Moslem, then they are hysterically and violently against it.

[Reffo]

I'm not that confident that the settlements and their population could be safe in the new Palestinian state. And those enclaves couldn't be part of Israel either. The two-state model would result in losing them, because no sane Israeli would live in them without the IDF's protectionI would put it differently. I am confident that the Jewish population would NOT be safe.

Let's get real. ALL the major "settlement" blocs are near the green line (I am using their terminology even though as Dayag said, there is nothing illegitimate about Jews establishing their homes in Judea and Samaria). Why do I mention that? Because I believe that so long as the Palestinian Arabs insist on impractical "solutions" involving the abandonment of ANY large "settlements" or taking over large Jewish populations, that is a sign that they are not looking for peaceful solutions. It is a sign that they are looking to cause discord and friction amongst Israelis in order to weaken Israel to soften Israel up for the next stage ...

The Arabs have no shortage of land, just look at the map of the Middle East. Anyone who believes that those few "settlements" which are located around the old 1967 boundaries, are really THE obstacle to peace, is either naive or are hostile towards Israel. To me, it is easy to know when the possibility of peace WILL be real. Look for day when Arabs will negotiate in good faith and look for practical solutions under which Israel will keep ALL the major "settlement" blocs. In the meanwhile, all they are doing is messing with people's minds to try and fool them into believing that Israel is THE obstacle to peace. The Arabs are not the ones who invented propaganda but they sure are ardent practitioners of it. And they managed to fool a lot of people but not every one!

[doppess]

I would put it differently. I am confident that the Jewish population would NOT be safe.

Let's get real. ALL the major "settlement" blocs are near the green line (I am using their terminology even though as Dayag said, there is nothing illegitimate about Jews establishing their homes in Judea and Samaria). Why do I mention that? Because I believe that so long as the Palestinian Arabs insist on impractical "solutions" involving the abandonment of ANY large "settlements" or taking over large Jewish populations, that is a sign that they are not looking for peaceful solutions. It is a sign that they are looking to cause discord and friction amongst Israelis in order to weaken Israel to soften Israel up for the next stage ...

The Arabs have no shortage of land, just look at the map of the Middle East. Anyone who believes that those few "settlements" which are located around the old 1967 boundaries, are really THE obstacle to peace, is either naive or are hostile towards Israel. To me, it is easy to know when the possibility of peace WILL be real. Look for day when Arabs will negotiate in good faith and look for practical solutions under which Israel will keep ALL the major "settlement" blocs.

Let's say that Israel and PA reaches agreement about the major settlement blocks near the Green Line. I was talking about the enclaves that are far inside West Bank, e.g. near Nablus, Hebron, the Jordan border. I was wondering more about them than the settlements near the Green Line. You can see from the map that I linked that there are plenty of those that can't be incorporated to Israel proper. What would be the political reality of them...

[farmboy]

Israel will not leave the Jordan Valley, regardless of whatever final status agreement is made with the Palestinian Authority, says the PM.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/230788
If there was ever to be a Palestinian state, there would need to be Jewish controlled enclaves. Population swaps would be inevitable and resisted by both sides.
Realistically could you ever envisage the Palestinians agreeing to anything?
If the moon was made of cheese, do you think that there would be varieties that we haven't tried yet? and which ones would you go for?

[Reffo]

Let's say that Israel and PA reaches agreement about the major settlement blocks near the Green Line. I was talking about the enclaves that are far inside West Bank, e.g. near Nablus, Hebron, the Jordan border. I was wondering more about them than the settlements near the Green Line. You can see from the map that I linked that there are plenty of those that can't be incorporated to Israel proper. What would be the political reality of them...I think we are talking about a hypothetical situation. All I can say is that there are differing opinions about such a scenario. In case of 'the possibility of peace' many people like me would advocate pragmatism regarding the smaller and remote outposts. But it is a moot point. Before we even consider those remote outposts, there are other tell tale signs which tell us whether the Palestinian Arabs are looking for peace or are just playing games. For instance ...


Do they insist on the right of return?
Are they willing to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people?
Do they insist that the old city of Jerusalem should be exclusively Arab?
Are they willing to agree to Israel's security considerations?


the destiny of the small remote outposts should be discussed in conjunction of the above issues and more. Not in isolation. My feeling is that pragmatism by the Palestinian Arab side would beget pragmatism by Israel too. Conversely, no pragmatism by THEM will beget no pragmatism by Israel too. The days are gone when ONLY Israel is the side that makes concessions. The Palestinians NEED to start making concessions too.

[doppess]

Yeah, it's a very hypothetical situation. I just wanted to get some educated guesses from people who are more familiar with Israeli politics. I guess the newslink farmboy posted answered my question quite thoroughly.


Realistically could you ever envisage the Palestinians agreeing to anything?
If the moon was made of cheese, do you think that there would be varieties that we haven't tried yet? and which ones would you go for?

Not really. But there wouldn't be much to discuss under this subforum if we are content that 'Palestinians agree on nothing, the book is closed'. Even if it was the truth.

[Reffo]

I just wanted to bring this up again because I've just begun my international law course. The answer I give at this stage is, tentatively, yes. But again I'm only at the beginning of my studies of IL so that may change.

From the ICJ ruling on Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons:

This is what "international law" really IS ...


Judge Aharon Barak and his colleagues rebuked the ICJ, but could not yet bring themselves to state that international law has become another weapon in political warfare, without any moral authorityEven though they could not utter the words.

Here, read more in this link ...

The Myth of International Law (http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/articles/1841_the_myth_of_international_law.doc)

[bar-arallu]

And yet it was Barak who so damaged Israeli sovereignty again and again, while extending his non existing mandate over all things Am Israel. Still, even a sniveling sell-out gets it right on occasion. Great link. International Law is oxymoron.

[Reffo]

Here is another silly argument about the "illegality" of settlements ...


The refusal to officially define the construction of settlements as “illegal” may be connected to a misunderstanding in relation to the definition of occupied territory itself. The official position of the Israeli authorities as well as the implicit (sometimes explicit) standpoint of many U.S. politicians, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is that the West Bank should be considered “disputed territory.” No state in the world, however, recognizes Israel beyond the 1967 lines. Moreover the legal definition of the term “occupation” is applied to a territory in which a foreign military force is able to exercise complete or partial military control, as well as civil-administrative control over infrastructures and the daily life of local residents

By +972blog |Published December 29, 2012
To be a peace broker, U.S. must reasses its position on settlements (http://972mag.com/to-be-a-peace-broker-u-s-must-reasses-position-on-settlements/62926/)

Really? "No one in the world recognises ... ?" That is the criteria of international law? Majority rule? Not the rule of law? Not the precedents? No facts? Just what the majority wants?

Personally I define that as the tyranny of the majority which is not the same as LAW. Otherwise the lynchings of African Americans in the deep south by the Kul Klux Clan could have been defined as the rule of law where in those days the majority approved of those acts often based on very flimsy evidence, against the lynched person, and backed up by plenty of bigotry and prejudice.

How about this for international law instead? After the 1967 war, the UN security council passed resolution 242. It urged the protagonists to NEGOTIATE borders taking SECURITY as one of the criteria. The agreed borders would become the recognised borders. Had the Arabs bothered to NEGOTIATE in good faith. There would now be recognised borders, peace and the "settlements" would only exist within the borders of Israel. But as it is, they were built on disputed territories because life cannot stop just because the Arabs have a different agenda rather than making peace with Israel within recognised borders.

[Reffo]

From the Washington Post editorial ...

'Wash. Post': Settlements not main peace obstacle (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=298171)


Israeli settlements are not the main obstacle to peace and their prospective limited expansion does not preclude the eventual emergence of a Palestinian state, according to a Washington Post editorial published on Wednesday.

In “Overheated rhetoric on Israeli settlements,” the paper’s editors denounced as “counterproductive” the international community’s incessant criticism of Israeli plans to build thousands of housing units across the Green Line, primarily in Jerusalem, as doing so “reinforces two mistaken but widely held notions: that the settlements are the principal obstacle to a deal and that further construction will make a Palestinian state impossible.”Happy 2013. Some of them are beginning to wake up.

[bar-arallu]

This is not insignificant coming from the left leaning WaPo. I do guarantee there will be a counter editorial anytime now.

[pelsar]

This is not insignificant coming from the left leaning WaPo. I do guarantee there will be a counter editorial anytime now.

whereas its a nice welcome of the papers "opening their eyes" a bit, the whole "illegal settlement" thing is nothing more than a different "attack" angle using different means (in this case its "lawfare). The left loves it because it has the "international" law behind them, therefore its legit, though I cant recall any kind of court case that was actually held about this subject.

Again the interest is not anything about consequences, its about their version of "justice" and they love the concept of "consensus and intl law. Mainly it provides a platform where those that use it, dont have to deal with any kind of consequences and hence any "responsibility." Infact they wont even discuss real consequences, since its "intl law" or there is a "consensus" or its 'just"...nothing else is relevant.

[Reffo]

whereas its a nice welcome of the papers "opening their eyes" a bit, the whole "illegal settlement" thing is nothing more than a different "attack" angle using different means (in this case its "lawfare). The left loves it because it has the "international" law behind them, therefore its legit, though I cant recall any kind of court case that was actually held about this subjectThe term "lawfare" is an excellent description of what is going on, how they abuse the very concept of law.

[Reffo]

Caroline Glick spoke on the 'Intelligence Square' debate against the motion (apparently) of dismantling "the settlements". She really socked it to them. Please watch how she does it on this video. She is excellent ...

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/119650.html

The video does not show the speeches of opposing speakers, nor the outcome of the debate. Usually, the audience votes in favour or against the motion. If anyne knows more about the outcome, or has videos of other speakers, please post relevant info. I suspect, they did not vote for her side because these types if debates are always stacked by "progressives" and we know that if it is about Israel, they are willing to vote for a motion that declares the earth flat.

[Space Cowboy]

Caroline Glick spoke on the 'Intelligence Square' debate against the motion (apparently) of dismantling "the settlements". She really socked it to them. Please watch how she does it on this video. She is excellent ...

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/119650.html

The video does not show the speeches of opposing speakers, nor the outcome of the debate. Usually, the audience votes in favour or against the motion. If anyne knows more about the outcome, or has videos of other speakers, please post relevant info. I suspect, they did not vote for her side because these types if debates are always stacked by "progressives" and we know that if it is about Israel, they are willing to vote for a motion that declares the earth flat.

Here is the whole debate, I believe. Caroline did an excellent job.

http://intelligencesquared.com/events/israel-settlement-policy/

[Reffo]

Here is the whole debate, I believe. Caroline did an excellent job.

http://intelligencesquared.com/events/israel-settlement-policy/thanks. After watching the whole debate, I think the arguments boil down to this:

The pro motion side: The whole world opposes the settlements so if Israel does not listen, Israel will be forced to it's knees and it will be destroyed.

The anti motion side: The Arabs don't just want an end to the settlements, they want to end Israel too. Ending the settlements is just the first step in that process.

I believe that the anti motion side is right. So the next battle that Israel has to win in order to survive is to stop the prophecy of those who threaten Israel with fire and brinstone from being realised.

In any case, even if we are wrong in asessing Arab intentions (and I don't think we are), it is way too late. The idea that it is possible for Israel to ethnically cleanse 500,000 settlers from their homes in order to appease "the world", without destroying Israel from within, is just plain science fiction (or call it whatever else you like, other than science).

The fact is that Israel is on a tread mill from which it cannot get off. So either it will find a way to change world opinion, or the prophets of doom will prove to be right. If that will turn out to be the outcome, then once again we Jews will "be able to thank" smart ass little court Jews" like this little Levy guy who so emotively and successfully manipulated the opinions of the audience against Israel. Even those who perhaps did not have pre existing opinions (very much a minority in that obviously biased "progressive" audience that always invites itself to these types of debates organised by the BBC - and their ilk).

[edwincourt]

Eugene Rostow, Legal Scholar, Former Dean of the Yale Law School, Under Secretary of State in the Johnson administration, US State Dept Legal Advisor, Drafter of UN Res. 242 pertaining to Israeli land in the West Bank...

The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory [Palestine]. The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."

The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent 'natural law' claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own."
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Policy-Quest-Law-Essays/dp/9024729114/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362411945&sr=1-22&keywords=eugene+rostow

[Reffo]

Eugene Rostow, Legal Scholar, Former Dean of the Yale Law School, Under Secretary of State in the Johnson administration, US State Dept Legal Advisor, Drafter of UN Res. 242 pertaining to Israeli land in the West Bank...Yes, Edwincourt, I often quoted Eugene Rostow and other pertinent facts such as the text of the 1949 Armistice agreement which at the insistence of the Arabs specifically states that the 1949 lines (which in fact are the 1967 boundaries) must not be considered to be the final borders.

Alas, to no avail. Those who for their own reasons decided that the settlements are illegal cannot be swayed. Their quoted reason? Majority rule. I guess if the majority would rule that the earth is flat (for political reasons), they would put their hands on their hearts and swear that the earth is flat.

That's how this world of ours is. Maybe we humans are not as smart as we think we are? Maybe we are just another animal species who don't really use our God given reasoning power as often as we ought to.

[Aliyah1995]

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[Reffo]

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/Nothing surprises me anymore :)

[PETER ROTBERG]

lready existing

[PETER ROTBERG]

Comments by Peter Rotberg on the "2 State for 2 people myth"
*It's: Distortion of historical facts - Palestinians are an integral part of the Pan -Arab/ Islamic Nation
* ignoring territorial aand demographic realities - Total territory in square km. of the Arab countries in the area is 650 fold bigger tha that of Israel which-holds less that 2 % of the area - hardly seen on te map
*wishful thinking concerning the prospective Palestinian Entity- no comments needed
* Ignoring Israel vital security interests - When squeezed within undefensible Aushvitz borders ( and this is the only thing the Palestinians agree to discuss ) Israel will be under continious daanger of terrorist attacks combined with the unrest on the part of Israeli Arabs provocked and encouraged by the palestinians and Left wing inciters .Thy won't rest until the Stage program is completed .
*Gross Math mistake : Israel and Palestinian Authority are not located on an iosolated island .Thee are 22 neighbouring , Independent , sovereign Arab- Moslem countries of which the Palestinian are an integral part
Thus setting up an additional country would mean 23 Arab countries possessing the territory of more than 400.00 squqare km. vs Israel , shrunk and weakend by a prospective suicidal agreement
No international guaranties will solve Israeli security concerns and demographic problems of a country facing a population density rate of the highest in the world
* Israel is nor an agressor or occupuying force in the lands where Jewish presence and ststehood were known and historically proved thousands of years before the Palestinians have ever been invented
*Israel is not a colonial power nor an empire to grant independance to other nations
* our only concern is - to guaranty to the Jewish state secority borders within which we would be able to live in peace , to develop and to defent ourselves if needed
The rest is none of our concern
*There has never been an officialy recognized and authorired by Israeli Government , Knesset or other competent institutions commitment on the 2 state for 2 peoples solution
Bar - Ilan declaration was a private initiative of PM Benjamin Natanyahu
So far he hasn't been crowne to talk about himself in fist person plural
WE are us - the people- Not only him
VOX POPULI -VOX DEI
Peter Rotberg
for more details : Peter Rotberg wgh@netvision. net.il
Author of " In search for alternative solutio" Jewish daily News and " על הדמוגרפיה והגאוגרפיה " הצופה .

[Reffo]

Welcome to IF Peter, what you say above is 100% spot on.

[edwincourt]

When, exactly, in the last, oh, 5,000 years did so-called palestinians name their own country?

[PETER ROTBERG]

To Edwincourt
The answer is : never
Even in the text and on the maps of the 1948 Partition Resolution the names : Palestinians or Palestinian State are not mentioned . Instead ,it says" The Arab State of Palestine while the concept "Palestine" means a location as it was referred to By Romans and later on by the British as the name of the territories controlled by British Mandatory Administration . The name was a distortred version of ,FILISTINES " -tribes that have long dissapeared and have nothing to see with ARAB TERRRORISTS posing for " Palestinian People "
The notion " 2 States for 2 Peoples "was invented by the SOviet Secret services and Politburo and implanted by Meir Wilner
( Israeli Cpmmunist Party Gen.Sec.) and Left - Wing Pro-Arab Propaganda mashine into public conscience .

Many "Palestinians" admit this simple Truth ( f.ex. Dakhlan and others ) and the " founder of the Palestinian struggle for seldetermination - Yasser Arafat was born in.. Cairo in 1921 and has nothing to see with so called "Zionist occupation" in 1967In addition, the territory , presently held by Israel and the PA there doesn't meet necessary phisical , demographic and geographic conditions for creating and sustaining 2, viable independent states. ( See my article" In search for alternative solutions" )
It's all a big pack of lies and , reiterated and sung so many times and from so many sites and podiums that many naive people and left- wing entuthiastic idiots bagan to believe in .
" Palestinians" are nothing but a struggling arm of the worldwide Islamic expansionism the 2 main enemies of which are : Israel and the USA . The Big and the Small Satan , as they call it.
Dont be afraid of them!
Don't trust them!
Don't ask for anything from them !
Fight them back !
Peter Rotberg
wgh@netvision.net.il

[PETER ROTBERG]

Checks always come for payment.
especially political " checks " without backing
Comments by Peter Rotberg on last US State Secretary visit to the region

Israeli PM - Mr. Benjamin Natanyahu expressed his consent to the 2 States for 2 nations solution outlines in his Bar -Ilan Declaration
As usual , the other side " pushed down the enter button " onnly on the first part of his statement : Israel agrees to the establishment of a Plestinian State.
All conditions . abstentions and reservations were iommediately " deleted" as it previously happened with 14 conditions to the admittance of the " Road Map plan"
As a result, instead of sought for " security borders " we got security arrangements within l defendless Aushvitz 67 borders, refugees , Jerusalem redivision and the rest of the usual mantras of a fraudulent " negociations" with final results , declared in advance
Did you expect anything else , Mr. Natanyahu "
I didn't
Israel should change the whole peace strategy approach or loose the whole game immediately or gradually
For more details email :wgh@netvision.net.il[/email]

Peter Rotberg .
That's what a Palestinian

[NewsGuy]

When, exactly, in the last, oh, 5,000 years did so-called palestinians name their own country?
Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

[PETER ROTBERG]

to Mr Edwincourt
Emergency warning:VIRUS PALESTINAE
Sir
Thanks for your reply
Add to these 5 "palestinian Motherlands " worldwide outposts the Islamists are setting up within the framework of their
crawiling expansionist war of which " the Palestinians are a struggling arm whenever in the world where the blood is shed and the lawlessnes reigns
f.e in Iraqi occupied Kuweit thePalestinians servrd as a real SS sturm gangs for the occupying forces . You can also see them
in Syria and on other fronts of Obama's revolutions also known as " Arab spring " the first " flowers of which we can clearly see in Egypt .
And yet, with all due respect to your
and other talented and devoted members' of this respectful Forum bright insights
as long as we only talk to one another the effect of our activity will be negligible or none
Organized action is needed to stop the "Palestinian"mass psychosis " spreading up as a real epidemic
Yours
Peter Rotberg
wgh@netvision.net.il
only

[PETER ROTBERG]

In search for alternative solutions
Comments by Peter Rotberg
Israel
I feel proud of my country's dedication for peace and justice each time when I happen to pass by diplomatic missions of Egypt and Jordan in Israel
Peace agreements with the abovementioned countries enjoyed overwhelming support and a wide national consensus on the part of majority of Israeli citizens although at the time of concluding them the country was ruled by 2 different political blocks - National Zionist Right Centrist Likud Government and Social Democratic Labour Coalition Ha Maarach
Decades of attempts to solve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict by extending automatically the same ways and methods which led to peace with Egypt and Jordan proved futile and unproductice if not counter productive
Israel made tremendous effotrs and endangered its security by conceding land for peace with 2 legitimate Arab States- Egypt and Jordan that duly recognized Israel prior to concluding mutually agreed upon and internationally supported and authorised peace treaties
In both cases the terms and conditions for achieving an agreed upon arrangement were met to a certain extent ( classic theory of compromises ) : i.e mutual trust; mutual interest , mutual respect; preparedness for mutual concessions
None of the above can be met or clearly proved viable while dealing with the Palestinians. It is a completely different story
Till 6 days war which was forced on us by the Arab side the so called " occupied territories " were uinde full control by Jordan and Egypt For some inconceivable reasons , Egypt and Jordan didn't use this opportunity to grant their beloved Palestinian brothers the right for national self determinationa and a state of their own. WEhat could have been simpler than that ?!!
Also , the so called PLO - Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded about 3 years before this "occupation " by Jews of the territories where Jewish rule and presence were historicaly proved thousands of years before" the Palestinians" have ever been invented as a struggling arm against Israel and a tool of Islamic Expansionism in our region .
The whole story is a pack of lies and an unprecedented historical distortion .
I thing Israeli Government should turn to Egypt and Jordan and asked them why they committed this historical act of injustice and denial of " Palestinian People legitimate" right in the past and suggest them to correct this mistake now. Better later than never !
I am not a naive novice in international affairs to suggest to turn Joradan into Palestine or settle " the Palestinians" in Egypt
I suggest to ask these 2 respective countries to give up a few % of they wide and half empty lands to their" beloved Palestinian brethren" along the border line with respective countries to solve their demographis problems and.... ours
this will provide them with necessary territoriy to establish and maintain a viable national Entity ( It's none of our business how they call it or administer it ) and will provide my country - Israel with secure borders since on the territory presently held by Israel and the PA these 2 conditions cannot be met.
That's what I call: SWAPS - not the futile and suicidal attempts to carry out transfer of Arabs together with the territory
I specified and elaborated terms and conditions of this Peace Plan in 2 articles in English and Hebrew "In Search for Alternative Solutions" Jewish daily News and על הדמוגרפיה והגיאוגרפיה in Hebrew daily הצופה .
I also sent this project to Natanyahu and Liberman

Peter Rotberg
Israel
wgh@netvision.net.il

[PETER ROTBERG]

The original text of the beforementioned article originally posted in Jerusalem Post by Peter Rotberg. ( 2003 version slightly editted
In search for realistic alternatives

In search for realistic alternatives

Road map’s and Geneva’s fraud and Arab Ligue " new" Initiative supporters , in their striving for peace
at any cost ( especially at Israel’s) may have ignored a few “minor”
demographic ,historical ,geographical , political and environmental factors:

1.On the territory which is presently held by Israel and the PA there is no room
for 2 fully fledged “ viable sates”, as President Bush put it. To understand it
just one glance at the geographic map will fully suffice.
More credibility could be given to this claim by providing statistics
concerning population density , birth rate forecasts, natural resources analysis
and impossibility to set up reasonably defensible borders under
given circumstances .( Maps and charts available at request.)

2.Historically and demographically there has never been a sovereign Palestinian
state or nation since the Palestinians do not meet minimal distinguishing
criteria to be regarded as such , namely : a different historical, linguistic,
cultural, religious or ethnical back ground. etc.3. Thus the Arabs living now on
the disputed territories are a part of the pan Arab nation and must be referred
to and treated as such. Their cultural, religious and human rights should be
respected as those of any other group of population the world over. This
definition doesn’t assume the right for separate statehood.(See Balfour
declaration concerning other ,already existing communities)

3.The PA autonomous entity represents a dictatorial oppressive and aggressive
regime the real goal of which is eliminating the Jewish state by terror or
diplomacy or by a combination of both. Changing Abu Amar for Abu Mazen, or
Abu Ala doesn’t make any difference . Abu Mazen was not a naןve and feeble “
chick without feathers”, needing help and support, as PM Sharon put it ,
and neither Abu Ala is.. They all are fully grown cruel predators feeding
on Jewish blood and posing as an innocent doves of peace. Reasonable , unbiased
and honest people cannot support the so called Palestinian cause since there
is no a juste cause behind it to be supported .It is all a big, shameless
and baseless fraud.

4. The solution lies in returning to Reagan’s plan in addition to a new
regional repartition which could be implemented by convincing Jordan and Egypt
to share some of their vast and half empty territories, bordering with the
disputed areas with their beloved , homeless Palestinian brethren. This might
be a real and fair partition which would provide both Israel and local Arabs
with viable territories and secure borders. Just to remind the readers: Jordan
and Egypt controlled the so called “ occupied territories” before the 6 days
war and didn’t even think for a while of granting the Palestinians self
determination. They shouldn’t miss the golden opportunity to correct the
historical mistake they committed 4 decades ago.

Establishing or not a Palestinian state, dividing PA controlled territory into
cantons or any other prospective solution for the group of Arab population
calling themselves “ Palestinians” isn’t any of our concern.
Al we have to worry about is defensible and dully recognized borders within
which the state of Israel would have enough territorial depth to defend itself ,
to develop and to live in peace while the neighboring entity wouldn’t present
an existential threat to the Jewish state.

What name they decide to give to this future entity :a state, a federation of
cantons , a kingdom or a caliphate isn’t any of our business. And if the don’t
have enough room for this solution- they may borrow it from their Arab neighbors
who have plenty . Actually , can anybody tell me Why not?..

Peter Rotberg. P.O.Box 697. Ramla.prm@...

Abridged Hebrew version appeared in Israeli daily “ Hazofe”.
Peter Rotberg
Israel

[Richmond guy]

As I understand it UN resolutions are capable of forming rules of customary international law. Given the extremely large number of resolutions declaring settlement illegal and the overwhelming majority by which they tend to be approved I think it can be said that such a law exists. And the ICJ purported to reach its conclusion on the basis of agreements signed by Israel and customary law.

You would like to claim that the unanimous determination of that court RE settlements is simply wrong, and that your interpretation of international law is actually the correct one. That is a futile exercise, given that Israel alone maintains that position.

We would be wiser to simply acknowledge that here there is a clash between international law and our national interests, and that given that this is a very important issue that goes to the very existence of the state, we are choosing to disregard international law. Of course Israel should not state that publicly, and should continue to argue its case. But in reality this is meaningless since no other state or relevant international body agrees with us.

In any case, international law is not necessarily incorporated into Israeli law. The Knesset may deliberately legislate contrary to international law, in such a way that rebuts the presumption that a point of international law applies. So nothing technically binds us beyond what we so choose, and even Israel's courts would not dispute that.

International Law (IL) is much older and still valid than mere 'recent' ICJ opinions seem to give the impression of. Those opinions reflect interpretations of historical and judicial facts ; legal, political and journalistic opinions and innuendo presented the court. It is the prerogative of each judge, guided by his/her bias , how much or how little import he/she attaches to presented data and how to interpret presented data. Anybody analyzing the opinions of the court pertaining to Israeli affairs can't but help being astounded about it's blatantly displayed bias , couched of course in proper legalese.
It is actually ironic, that IL actually favors Israel if we keep in mind that IL from ~ 1920 onward does not suddenly vanish but has not lost it's validity. So for instance the San Remo Agreement and the statues of the British Mandate both stipulated a Jewish Home and Jewish settlements in what was then known Palestine or Cis-Jordan (which is actually only a fraction of the biblical Palestine or traditional Jewish Home which for instance included Amman in Transjordan). I am not aware of any High Parties, who together with the Jewish Agency|Israel ,have come to an agreement to nullify above agreements. (Before the mandatory GB abandoned it's LoN mandate, it cancelled but all provisions) .
Also , all former French and British mandates transformed into sovereign states within the international borders of the previous mandate. These new sovereign states like Syria , Jordan, Irak etc are the state successors of the former mandates. I do not see any reason, why the SoI should under IL being treated differently than he neighbors , that is to say, Israel - like her neighbors - is the legal state successor of A.L.L. of the Palestine portion of the British Mandate Palestine.

Of course , we know what multiple causes had prevented Israel from asserting her sovereignty within the international borders of the former Cis-Jordan- BMP : the per UNO Charter illegal , multistate Arab military invasion, the illegal breaking of just about all Statues of the Rhodes agreement between Jordanian+ ISR , Jordanian subsequent illegal annexation,crass British complicity with Israel's enemies, United States ambiguity and unwillingness to get militarily involved plus the US's and other state's insistence of the applicability of the stillborn UNGAR 181 - which itself is a) illegal per UN Charta b)a completely harebrained scheme with a patch quilt of six quasi separate territories.
Last not least, some Israeli politicians have done very great harm to Israel: 1)after 1967 Israel should have instantly asserted her judicial and military power over the newly liberated territories that had been for so long illegally annexed by Jordan 2) to legitimize a phantasy by renaming Arabs to 'Palestinian' was one of the biggest blunders Israel did to herself.

In any event, just because the intellectually corrupt ICJ perverts IL, does not mean IL per se is meaningless for ISR. It's too bad, ISR herself harbors so many people whose intentions in the long run - as history has shown us over and over again since 1920 - are not beneficial for Israel.

[Richmond guy]

You truly believe that if you get enough non-binding decisions they become binding in international law?
i.e. non-binding + non-binding + non-binding = binding!

Israel did not participate in the ICJ's hearings. It's arguments were not heard. You side with the ICJ against Israel, but did you even read the article above, Curly?

Said article needs some serious rewriting to crystallise it's salient points.

[Richmond guy]

By definition ALL international law and national interests diverge. That's essentially the point of international law.

Not so.

[Richmond guy]

The non-binding nature of the resolutions is not the point. I am not suggesting that they might be binding because they are resolutions. The might embody a rule of customary law given the overwhelming consensus over the issue. But as I said I am not familiar with international law yet (I have not done any IL courses yet, I'm still in the early stages of my degree). I wasn't saying that this has actually happened, just that according to my basic understanding it is possible. In any case this wasn't really the main gist of my post.

I skimmed the article. I have read these arguments before, I've read some of Prof. Stone's defences of Israel and a number of subsequent critiques of his work. I'm not making a legal judgment against Israel - as I said I'm not yet familiar with international law. But it seems to me that for us, continuing to focus our efforts on international law is pointless. The legal consensus against Israel is quite overwhelming. More importantly the law is irrelevant. If the law required us to accept a Right of Return and withdraw to the green line with no population swap and entirely give away the Old City, which our critics argue it does, then the law is the end of us.



It won't, and Israel shouldn't admit to it. Like I said Israel should continue to argue its case in public. But I wouldn't expect it to make any difference.



I can't, since I'm not familiar with it. But the ruling of the ICJ does deal with the material above if I recall correctly (I read it about a year ago) as do a variety of legal journal articles which can be found online.

And my original reason for studying international law was exactly so that I could argue on Israel's behalf on this basis, though now I'm doubtful it can do any good.

There are indeed quite a number of books by eminent Professors of International law which eloquently argue points of IL on Israels behalf. Stone has been mentioned , there is Lauterpacht, Howard Grief with The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law -a must read , and a few more. Those books are not always easy reads but, because they apply much cold, irrefutable logic , makes them understandable and, to the most parts ,agreeable.

[Richmond guy]

I still think you are incorrect, Curly. Your quotes do not say that these non-binding decisions automatically become binding international law, only that they may or can do so. The majority cannot change existing international law by passing a resolution that contradicts it.

Countries do not vote in the General Assembly based on their understanding of international law, but based on political considerations. The idea that the settlements are illegal is just an oft repeated lie, pushed by countries who mean our destruction.

Two bull's eyes.

[Richmond guy]

[QUOTE=curlyg;317879]


ICJ rulings are non-binding and, anyway, the ICJ is merely an arm of the UN controlled by the Arab and Islamic bloc. Nor, has Israel ever been represented on the ICJ.

Not quite that way. It is the latently anti-Semitic Old-Europeans who lend the ICJ it's Zeitgeist. Arabs are mere Marionettes of the Europeans ...


[The binding Palestine Mandate ratified by the League of Nations establishing "Palestine" as the Jewish National Home is the only enforceable document pertaining to the matter of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria
Well, there is a lot of merit in that assertion ,but......

Just to be technically correct : the LoN did not 'ratify' the PM , it merely oversaw that the BMP and the mandatory acted within the intentions of the Versailles Agreement i.e. Article 21.

[Richmond guy]

I still find it strange that Britian and Pakistan were the only 2 countries to have supported Jordan's right over parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

True, those two countries recognized the illegal annexation of parts of the State of Israel.

Britain's volte face regarding good will - or friends with benefits - towards Jews started in the early 20s and degenerated into full complicity with the enemies of the Jews.


Talk about a warped UN. Today they'd have approved it overwhelmingly.

True, the United Nations today is diametrical opposite as was envisioned between Roosevelt and Churchill during the Argencia Conference .

I am afraid ,even the Nazis with their unvarnished ideology would get a hearty UNO-welcome today.....and not only from Muslim countries....

[Richmond guy]

Those are the bodies that determine international law, yes.

Not true! They interpret IL. Nothing else.

IL can only be established by agreement between High Parties.

[Richmond guy]

Show me where advisory opinions from the ICJ, whose jurisdiction Israel has never accepted, are binding upon it under international law.

Also, only UN Security Council decisions under chapter VII are binding on Israel in International Law.

It is deemed 'binding' ,yes. Because those chapter VII ; 42,43,45, UNSCRs are tied to invitations of military enforcement interventions. But they are not really binding since a sovereign state can not be ordered to do anything at all by any other sovereign state. Unless there exists a demonstrated will by some UN members to enforce a chapter VII ; 42,43,45 SCR , nothing but a lot of paper printing will occur. Irak sat on, laughed at and flaunted for 12 years on a chapter VII resolution. Thank you France...

[Richmond guy]

As I understand it UN resolutions are capable of forming rules of customary international law.

That would constitute a dictate to a sovereign state. Impossible. But if Sovereign States sign and ratify to abide and recognize a UNR as IL , yes then a UBR has become IL.
This has happened for instance with the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (even though many signatories trample on those rights) , or on the Nuremberg Principles and many more.


Given the extremely large number of resolutions declaring settlement illegal and the overwhelming majority by which they tend to be approved I think it can be said that such a law exists. And the ICJ purported to reach its conclusion on the basis of agreements signed by Israel and customary law.

You have allowed yourself to get blindsided by a lot of grandstanding pifflepaffle.


You would like to claim that the unanimous determination of that court RE settlements is simply wrong, and that your interpretation of international law is actually the correct one. That is a futile exercise, given that Israel alone maintains that position.
Either you have a conviction or you do not have one.

If you do have one , then it becomes every Israeli to follow Ben Gurion's maxim : "Maintain your position with indefatigable obstinacy".
Coming to think of it,isn't that what the Arabs do since 1920?



We would be wiser to simply acknowledge that here there is a clash between international law and our national interests, and that given that this is a very important issue that goes to the very existence of the state, we are choosing to disregard international law. Of course Israel should not state that publicly, and should continue to argue its case. But in reality this is meaningless since no other state or relevant international body agrees with us.

In any case, international law is not necessarily incorporated into Israeli law. The Knesset may deliberately legislate contrary to international law, in such a way that rebuts the presumption that a point of international law applies. So nothing technically binds us beyond what we so choose, and even Israel's courts would not dispute that.

There is no clash between IL per se and Israel's national interest.
If Israelis themselves would always act in Israel's long term interest under existing IL , Israel would stand stronger.

Unfortunately this is not the case.

[Richmond guy]

By definition ALL international law and national interests diverge. That's essentially the point of international law.
You omitted to define both of them.

And no, that's not the point , even though it has been allowed to appear that way.

[Richmond guy]

I would put it differently. I am confident that the Jewish population would NOT be safe.

Let's get real. ALL the major "settlement" blocs are near the green line (I am using their terminology even though as Dayag said, there is nothing illegitimate about Jews establishing their homes in Judea and Samaria). Why do I mention that? Because I believe that so long as the Palestinian Arabs insist on impractical "solutions" involving the abandonment of ANY large "settlements" or taking over large Jewish populations, that is a sign that they are not looking for peaceful solutions. It is a sign that they are looking to cause discord and friction amongst Israelis in order to weaken Israel to soften Israel up for the next stage ...

The Arabs have no shortage of land, just look at the map of the Middle East. Anyone who believes that those few "settlements" which are located around the old 1967 boundaries, are really THE obstacle to peace, is either naive or are hostile towards Israel. To me, it is easy to know when the possibility of peace WILL be real. Look for day when Arabs will negotiate in good faith and look for practical solutions under which Israel will keep ALL the major "settlement" blocs. In the meanwhile, all they are doing is messing with people's minds to try and fool them into believing that Israel is THE obstacle to peace. The Arabs are not the ones who invented propaganda but they sure are ardent practitioners of it. And they managed to fool a lot of people but not every one!

Well put.

[Reffo]

Hi Richmond Guy

Welcome to IF. Unfortunately, Mediocrates, Dayag and curlyg no longer post here so I will respond to your posts.

Putting aside the ICJ, are you aware that the so called 1967 borders that the critics of Israel are huffing and puffing about, were never recognised international borders? That in fact, the 1967 boundaries were just armistice lines signed by Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

Moreover, one of the clauses in of the 1949 armistice agreement between Jordan and Israel specifically said that these are not to be considered as final borders which would be determined in further negotiations. Moreover, the Arabs themselves insisted on that clause, presumably because they were hoping to further improve their borders down the track. Of course, that in turn begs the question why Israel now is not deemed to have similar rights?

Then of course there is the "small" matter of UN SC resolution 242 which is a mandatory resolution and which talks about secure borders which are to be negotiated by the warring parties. It does not mention 1967 borders.

So if there are no recognised borders, why exactly are the major settlement blocs illegal? Especially since the League of nations earmarked Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Food for thought isn't it?

[Richmond guy]

[///].

How about this for international law instead? After the 1967 war, the UN security council passed resolution 242. It urged the protagonists to NEGOTIATE borders taking SECURITY as one of the criteria. The agreed borders would become the recognised borders. Had the Arabs bothered to NEGOTIATE in good faith. There would now be recognised borders, peace and the "settlements" would only exist within the borders of Israel. But as it is, they were built on disputed territories because life cannot stop just because the Arabs have a different agenda rather than making peace with Israel within recognised borders.

What are you talking about?

Israel has recognized and secured International Borders via legal and recognized peace treaties with her Jordanian and Egyptian neighbors.
The SoI's International Borders run almost identical with those of the British Mandate Palestine for Cis-Jordan Palestine. (Classic , biblical if you will , Palestine , or Eretz Israel , as mentioned , reached far beyond the Jordan river)
Israeli property developments are done within the International Border of Israel on land whose legal title has never ever been claimed by any High Party - that is : never ever been disputed - and also not against the will of the legal Arab title holder of this or that particular lot unless of course there is a legal bill of sale.

It is a kind of willful delusion or deflection by the GoI to accept the term 'disputed lands' in reference to Israeli provinces Samaria and Judaea. 'Disputed' by whom? Again, not by a High Party but what has been essentially a private Arab terror organization financed and promoted by Egypt. Now the EU , other Arab states and the USA fawn over and finance that Arab org.
It's gotten from bad to worse for Israel with Israeli connivance.

The delusion or deflection aspect for 'disputed territories' kicks in with the term limitation for just those 'territories'. In reality though, the Arabs and Muslims of the world dispute the entire territory of Israel , Israel's very existence. Even if Israel would commit Harakiri and have Judaea and Samaria amputated from it's body, Arabs and Muslims would surely not rest applying all and any means until Israel seized to exist. Given it's history and the myriad repeated and screamed intentions of Arabs/Islamists, is that so difficult to imagine - worse - easily ignored ?

[Richmond guy]

Eugene Rostow, Legal Scholar, Former Dean of the Yale Law School, Under Secretary of State in the Johnson administration, US State Dept Legal Advisor, Drafter of UN Res. 242 pertaining to Israeli land in the West Bank...

Amen to Rostow ... every word founded in incontrovertible truth.... a rare thing nowadays....

[Richmond guy]

Yes, Edwincourt, I often quoted Eugene Rostow and other pertinent facts such as the text of the 1949 Armistice agreement which at the insistence of the Arabs specifically states that the 1949 lines (which in fact are the 1967 boundaries) must not be considered to be the final borders.

Sorry, those 'lines' were still 'lines' 18 years later : ex inuria non uritor ius !


Alas, to no avail. Those who for their own reasons decided that the settlements are illegal cannot be swayed. Their quoted reason? Majority rule. I guess if the majority would rule that the earth is flat (for political reasons), they would put their hands on their hearts and swear that the earth is flat.

That's how this world of ours is. Maybe we humans are not as smart as we think we are? Maybe we are just another animal species who don't really use our God given reasoning power as often as we ought to.

Seems that way...

[Richmond guy]

[///]

[///]

Pretty good.
Actually only scratching the surface ...

[PETER ROTBERG]

To Richmond Guy
Commentd by Peter Rotberg
Sir
Right! It is only scratching the already bruised and scratched surface or rather invitation to a deeper and more professional analysis . Like yours Neither can it be called unbiased , since in this conflict no one is neutral or unbiased
If you call Israel's national interests " our" interests so I am taking the liberty to assume that you are trying to plead Israel's cause and not otherwise .
Suppose , we're in the Court and You represent "our interests " ( I , sure would hire you for this job) and would be on your team .
The defense should start, in my opinion , by claiming that Customary International Law based on several , often contradictory UN decisions ,as you call it, cannot be considered binding for all the cases .
Then we should attack prosecutors main accusation of " occupation" since the newly liberated territories weren't taken from any legitimate, sovereign party
Then ( don't give them a break) comes your definition of" renaming the Arabs " Palestinians " which is a fraudulent trick aimed at producing a false effect of their legitimate belonging and possessing the Land where Jewish rule and presence were historically recorded and proven thousand of years before the Palestinians have ever been invented ( Spanish El Mundo p.ex. printed an add, namely saying : Palestina para los Palestinos ) it is incredible but people buy this or even more absurd crap.
History of the conflict and , especialy Arab- palestinian rejectionism and violence since 1948 may also be helpful in finding breaches and loopholes in our enemies and their supportes. The case isn't hopeless , with God's help ( these are acronyms of my email address WGH
We , here, dont have a right to capitulate, because it might be the only chance to survive as an Independent Jewish Nation.
Suppose , we are setting up today an International panel " Lawyers for israel" and we ask you to form and administer it
Will you take the job ?
Peter Rotberg
With God's Help - netvision.net.il

[Richmond guy]

To Richmond Guy
Commentd by Peter Rotberg
Sir
Right! It is only scratching the already bruised and scratched surface or rather invitation to a deeper and more professional analysis . Like yours Neither can it be called unbiased , since in this conflict no one is neutral or unbiased

Hi Peter, nice to 'hear' from you. Thank you.

IMHO , yes , it is quiet possible to be indeed relatively unbiased concerning the theme-cloud 'Zionism-Israel-Jews'.
A 'bias' means 'favoring' one viewpoint over others.
What drives 'favoring'? Emotions!
Only and always emotions. Nothing else. Most certainly not logic .
Acquired emotions - nobody is born as a (self-hating -)Jew-hater - are the driving force to ignore documented, historical facts, their evolutionary backgrounds and preempt applied logical analyses thereof, while at the same time , heap disproportional import on irrelevant , unimportant, tangential dross and data.
A person absorbing some of the ample historiography and strictly concentrating on a wide choice of available documented history on the subject 'Zionism-Israel-Jews' theme cloud, is bound by cool logic plus common sense to give the Zionist pov a wide berth.



If you call Israel's national interests " our" interests so I am taking the liberty to assume that you are trying to plead Israel's cause and not otherwise .
I indulge to address as 'we' ; 'our' people who send signals on similar frequencies as I do: 'brethren of the same mind' :). Yes, one may talk to the converted, but that does not mean there is no opportunity to learn something or sharpen up weakly argued points, to the contrary.



Suppose , we're in the Court and You represent "our interests " ( I , sure would hire you for this job) and would be on your team .
The defense should start, in my opinion , by claiming that Customary International Law based on several , often contradictory UN decisions ,as you call it, cannot be considered binding for all the cases .
Correct in so many ways.
Add also 'Statutory International Law' like Maritime Law and free, innocent passage: jus ad bellum for Israel in 1967.
Or the universal right of citizens of a state to move and settle freely and unencumbered within the recognized International borders of that state:


Article 13.
• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
( Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) )


Excuse moi , but does it say anywhere : "except the State of Israel" ?

And what part of 'freedom of movement and residence ' do people seem to have trouble with?

Pardon me, what do people not understand by the term 'within' ?

Tell me, what part of 'International state border' escapes your grasp of comprehension?
With this UDHR in combination with the laws of Israel, every Israeli citizen has the inherent *the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of the sovereign State of Israel* .

Ohhh, yes, I hear the angry cacophony about 'new facts on the ground' , 'new realities' but due to their demonstrable illegality thus hypocrisy, I call them 'faux facts' ; 'faux realities', patent falsehoods. But they lend themselves beautifully to some idiotic syllogisms, sadly Israelis Leftists make good use of them. Yet falsehoods are like boils , at some time they pop and the stinking pus oozes out.

That King George bestowed by Royal Promulgation, and thereby invested an inalienable right of settlement in all of [classic] Palestine to all 'citizens / inhabitants of Palestine' - which incidentally also included Jews - and that this 1924 Royal Promulgation became automatically recognized International Law since it was acted upon the declared , written will of the Four Principal Powers in San Remo and that King George's Promulgation has never been rescinded by High Contracting Parties [to which Jews MUST be consenting party of], meaning it is still in force; may only be mentioned aside. It is however enormously relevant to the 'settlement question'.

There are no *UN decisions*: all and every UNGA-Resolution/s are per UNO-Charter nonbinding 'suggestions' , they decide on an unenforceable suggestion. High Contracting Parties - Sovereigns - are beyond accepting anything from anybody ; that is where the sovereignty part kicks in , Sovereigns however should certainly listen to 'suggestions'.

Only state ratified contracts are legally binding to the respective signatory.

UNO membership entails for the individual member binding adherence to the Charter and Declarations which is universally acknowledged & recognized as for High Contracting Parties binding International Law.
It should in this context become right away abundantly clear, that Muslim doctrine\s are absolutely incompatible with many aspects of International Law, a fact they readily admit but shove aside by pointing out, that after everything has been said and done, it is 'Allah' who is the supreme force and his will overrides ours , hence *Allah's* will must be adhered to.
That this attitude stands also in direct opposite to the preamble of the UNO and to the founding fathers of the UNO , is self-explanatory.