Government Committee: says 'Israel not occupation force'

[curlyg]

The first question to ask: Is the West Bank under occupation?

Correct.

If the answer to that is yes, then the next question to ask is who had sovereign control of the West Bank prior to the Israeli occupation and who lived there?

Incorrect. This is of no legal significance. I don't see how you could possibly interpret the text you just quoted in that way. It doesn't say 'the occupying power shall not transfer... unless people of the same ethnic group lived there before the occupation.' You're giving that provision a nonsensical reading. The prohibition is clear cut and unambiguous - the occupying power can't transfer its population into occupied territory. Who that territory belonged to is not relevant at all.

The answer to that is that between 1948 and 1967, it was Jordan. And what did the Jordanians do? They ethnically cleansed the existing Jewish population from the West Bank.

Which would be a violation of individual human rights - and gives rise to individual remedies at most, if a specific person can show title to private land. It doesn't give Israel a right to establish Israeli civilian towns all over the occupied territory willy nilly.

But not many countries, not even Arab countries, recognized Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank. So who had RECOGNIZED sovereignty over the West Bank prior to 1948?

It's really strange that you place so much stock in RECOGNISED sovereignty when it comes to Jordan, but conveniently ignore the fact that not a single country on Earth RECOGNISES Israel's sovereignty over the same territory...

ANSWER: it was part of the British Mandate.

Which is a legal entity that does not exist - an entity that does not exist can't claim title over territory (obviously).

And what was the composition of the population of Palestine during the British mandate? ANSWER: it consisted of BOTH Jews and Arabs. And both people's had the right to settle anywhere within pre 1948 Palestine. So what changed? Why are Jews suddenly forbidden from settling in the West Bank, which was part of Palestine, after Israel's victory over Jordan in a defensive war?

That's the crux of Eugene Rostow's argument in favor of the legality of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. And how do his critics negate his argument? By saying that his view is the minority view. That's not a valid legal argument in my opinion. Unlike some, I will accept Only a well reasoned legal argument backed up by facts ...

You're being pretty unbelievably disingenuous. Rostow's critics don't negate his arguments by saying that "he's in the minority" - they present detailed legal arguments, widely accepted legal arguments I might add. The fact you haven't actually read them doesn't mean they don't exist.

[curlyg]

Mentioning the International Kangaroo Court of Justice as "the leading judicial authority on international law" after their politicized ruling in 2004 concerning the Separation Barrier is hilarious.

You might as well try to claim that the United Nations Human Rights Council is the leading authority on Human Rights.

http://www.bnaibrith.ca/cipac/cipac040709.html

Fact is that even judges which are on the record being sympathetic to Israel in other respects - like Higgins and Buergenthal, which are highly respected authorities on international law - considered the territory to be occupied by Israel and the settlements to be illegal. Like I said you can continue to discount everyone who disagrees with you as biased and politically motivated, but it starts to strain credulity soon enough when people take a closer look.

[curlyg]

Oh and it is false to claim that the Israeli high court ruled ALL "settlements" in the West Bank to be illegal. It ruled that only SOME of the settlements are illegal. Specifically, the settlements that it deemed were built on privately owned Arab lands. I am not aware of any rulings by the Israeli high court which deem settlements built on crown lands or places where Jews lived prior to the Jordanian invasion of 1948, as illegal.

Or is curlyg claiming that "settlements" like Gush Etzion and East Jerusalem all places where Jews returned after 1967 are illegal according to the Israeli high court?

No, the High Court has ruled that the territory is occupied but it is obligated to apply Israeli law, so when an Israeli statute deems certain settlements as legal the court is bound, hence Jerusalem, major settlement blocs, etc. The Court still holds to the same basic legal framework as the scholars I quoted though, and is definitely closer in its views to them than to Julius Stone or Rostow.

[Reffo]

That's because I don't believe you actually have an interest in the legal arguments. Now perhaps I'm being unfairly judgemental here but I hardly think you're interested in the technicalities of the law and treaty interpretation - what matters to you is the outcome, and the outcome you want is that the settlements are legal. You'll find the legal perspectives that back that point and stick with them

Thanks for projecting onto me what you think my motivations are. As if those projections of yours negate the actual arguments that I already provided. None of which you bothered to do in return. Atta go, curly, you are doing well ...

It is comical to claim that all of those scholars I listed - many of whom are Jewish and Israeli - are just echoing some 'party line' and are 'politically motivated against Israel.' Many of them support Israel's legal positions on a range of issues - Dinstein and Gray, for example, support Israel's right to respond in self-defence to attacks by non-state groups such as Hezbollah by attacking the state itself (i.e. Lebanon) which, believe it or not, is a pretty significant step away from 'traditional' international law. Again, you're committed to a particular legal outcome and are willing to just dismiss out of hand the world's leading scholars and international legal experts and organisations, relying on a very small minority opinion to back you up. That's fine, but it's not something I want to spend my time on

Well, it is comical for you to pretend that all those whom you quoted actually say what you claim. For example, the Israeli high court certainly does NOT.

As for the rest, if you can just arbitrarily negate the words of the two scholars whom I quoted, without any coherent arguments, then I certainly am willing to pick apart at least some of what your scholars claim by by asking some searching questions about the implications of their claims. Maybe you could show me the error of my ways? Or then again, maybe you cannot because all you can fall back on is to repeat their empty slogans. By repeating the words "illegal", "illegal", "illegal" as an endless mantra without justification. What is it that Goebbels said? Repeat a lie endlessly and eventually some people (the gullible ones) come to believe the lie ...

[Reffo]

Oh curlyg, and instead of just making assertions, may I ask you to present links to back up your claims? The way I do. Unfortunately, I have had the experience of catching you out in the past of making claims that when push comes to shove, were proven to be incorrect (for example, your assertions about what ambassador Oren said about the 1967 war with Egypt). I am not claiming that you are lying. I am saying that you are prone to misenterpret and exaggerate things. In any case, it is just common courtesy to back up one's claims with links. So if you please ...

Moderators? Is there a policy about this on this forum? If not, there ought to be.

[curlyg]

The list I made above is, from memory, the people I remember saying the territories are occupied. I'll look into their specific views on the settlements soon and post back, hopefully with quotes...

[Reffo]

The list I made above is, from memory, the people I remember saying the territories are occupied. I'll look into their specific views on the settlements soon and post back, hopefully with quotes...

Maybe you could start by providing a link to the ruling of the Israeli high court ruling where they say that all "settlements" are illegal?

[Reffo]

If the answer to that is yes, then the next question to ask is who had sovereign control of the West Bank prior to the Israeli occupation and who lived there?

Incorrect. This is of no legal significance. I don't see how you could possibly interpret the text you just quoted in that way. It doesn't say 'the occupying power shall not transfer... unless people of the same ethnic group lived there before the occupation.' You're giving that provision a nonsensical reading. The prohibition is clear cut and unambiguous - the occupying power can't transfer its population into occupied territory. Who that territory belonged to is not relevant at all

I beg to differ. It is correct if the previous recognized sovereign power had earmarked part of the land for a Jewish population, then allowing Jewish people in is not construed as a population transfer. Especially if Jews already lived there and were illegally ethnically cleansed by the combined Palestinian Arabs and Jordanians. Otherwise, keeping Jews out would just reward the Arabs for illeally getting rid of the Jewish population.

Which would be a violation of individual human rights - and gives rise to individual remedies at most, if a specific person can show title to private land. It doesn't give Israel a right to establish Israeli civilian towns all over the occupied territory willy nilly

Oh yes it does, as long as it isn't on privately owned Arab land. And by privetely owned, I mean a title deed which would be deemed as valid under the laws of the British Mandate.

It's really strange that you place so much stock in RECOGNISED sovereignty when it comes to Jordan, but conveniently ignore the fact that not a single country on Earth RECOGNISES Israel's sovereignty over the same territory...

Nothing strange about it. The Jewish population was one of the main groups that populated Palestine. Jordan on the other hand had their own country which was known as Transjordan.

Which is a legal entity that does not exist - an entity that does not exist can't claim title over territory (obviously)

But the British Mandate's laws have not lapsed. At least until such time as the West Bank is granted independence or it becomes part of another recognized sovereign power.

You're being pretty unbelievably disingenuous. Rostow's critics don't negate his arguments by saying that "he's in the minority" - they present detailed legal arguments, widely accepted legal arguments I might add. The fact you haven't actually read them doesn't mean they don't exist

I am the one who is being disingenuous? Not you? I have asked you to prsent their arguments but your response was that you don't have to because they are in the majority and they are respected. I quoted your own response back at you and I am being disingenuous? Interesting ...

[dayag]

Oh curlyg, and instead of just making assertions, may I ask you to present links to back up your claims? The way I do. Unfortunately, I have had the experience of catching you out in the past of making claims that when push comes to shove, were proven to be incorrect (for example, your assertions about what ambassador Oren said about the 1967 war with Egypt). I am not claiming that you are lying. I am saying that you are prone to misenterpret and exaggerate things. In any case, it is just common courtesy to back up one's claims with links. So if you please ...

Moderators? Is there a policy about this on this forum? If not, there ought to be.

Sorry, there isn't a policy about making unsupported assertions or showing sources, Reffo. But if one person cites credible sources and the other just puts forth his anonymous opinion, I know which one will be more persuasive to those reading the thread.

[Reffo]

Sorry, there isn't a policy about making unsupported assertions or showing sources, Reffo. But if one person cites credible sources and the other just puts forth his anonymous opinion, I know which one will be more persuasive to those reading the thread.

But I wasn't talking about curlyg putting forward his unsupported opinions. I was talking about curlyg putting words into the mouths of respected institutions. Institutions such as the Israeli high court. Now, if curlyg's assertions are correct, then those are not just opinions, they carry weight. But if his assertions are not correct then they are misleading and can sway the argument his way by essentially misinforming the readers of this forum. Is that what we want?

I'll say it again, I am not accusing curlyg of lying. I am saying that he has proven himself in the past of exaggerating and misinterpreting what his sources say. I dare say, none of us are immune from that perhaps. But the way to minimise the possibility of turning this forum into a place where propaganda is dispensed, is to invite participants to back up their claims by providing reference links. Perhaps not mandate but at least invite them to do it if it becomes apparent that they are habitually prone to put words into others' mouths without backing up such claims.

[Reffo]

Since curlyg talked about my "motivations", let me reveal what my motivations are NOT:

They are NOT to make a case for populating the entire West Bank with Jews and getting rid of the Arab population. That is just not a practical proposition and in all likelihood is a formula for never ending war. And my motivation is certainly not to help to foster solutions that perpetrate endless war.

Now let me say what IS my motivation for having this discussion:

My motivation is to negate the PROPAGANDA of those who pretend that all the Jewish "settlements" in the West Bank are ILLEGAL. Those people are just trying to apply pressure on Israel to comply to the dictates of the Arabs and their allies. I don't want them to succeed in that quest because that too is a formula for perpetual war.

So my overall motivation is to shed light on this topic and to dispell myths. I think that it's the only way to bring about a situation where both sides will be willing to compromise and agree not to resort to violence. Real peace? That, I won't talk about because unfortunately is very far away.

[Reffo]

curlyg

You know what else is comical? This is:

The committee's views haven't added anything new, they just selectively quoted the ICRC and the only two major authorities that support them, Stone and Rostow (and of those I only really consider Stone to be a truly eminent scholar) to support their predetermined conclusion.

Firstly because you are still just pre-occupied with "name dropping" rather than the substance of what they say. And secondly, because you are prepared to off handedly dismiss the credentials of someone like Rostow. As I said in one of my first posts on this thread, he was heavily involved in the formulation of UN resolution 242. Which is also relevant to this discussion because it mandated a negotiated solution for the borders. The resolution clearly stated that Israel has the right to negotiate new borders which are to be more secure as well as recognized. That clearly implies that the West Bank is not sacrosanct Arab only and "Jew free" land.

Also, if you insist on name dropping in order to prove your point of view, then perhaps here are some additional names that you may consider who don't seem to back up the proposition that all Israeli settlements are ILLEGAL. No American president has called the settlements illegal. The most that many of them said was that the settlements are unhelpful and hurt the prospects of peace (none said that all the settlements are actually ILLEGAL). Even president Carter was reputed to say the following on his visit to Gush Etzion:

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said on Sunday following a meeting with settler leaders that he did not believe Israel would withdraw from the Gush Etzion settlement bloc.

Carter said that as the West Bank bloc is situated beside the borders set following the 1967 Six-Day War, he imagines it will stay under Israeli control forever

Carter: Israel won't need to give up Gush Etzion settlements

would he say such a thing if he would consider the settlement of Gush Etzion to be illegal?

[Pleepleus]

Fact is that even judges which are on the record being sympathetic to Israel in other respects - like Higgins and Buergenthal, which are highly respected authorities on international law - considered the territory to be occupied by Israel and the settlements to be illegal. Like I said you can continue to discount everyone who disagrees with you as biased and politically motivated, but it starts to strain credulity soon enough when people take a closer look.

It only strains credulity for people like you who think Israel's settlements are illegal. I have read both sides' arguments and truly believe Israel is in the right under international law. Don't assume I call the International Court of Justice a "kangaroo court" just because I disagree with their decision. I wasn't the only person who thought it was politically biased, as evidenced by the link I posted criticizing that decision.

So, you agree with the International Kangaroo Court of Justice's decision on the Separation Wall?! Is there no issue under the sun on which you agree with Israel?!!!

[wat0n]

If the answer to that is yes, then the next question to ask is who had sovereign control of the West Bank prior to the Israeli occupation and who lived there? The answer to that is that between 1948 and 1967, it was Jordan. And what did the Jordanians do? They ethnically cleansed the existing Jewish population from the West Bank. But not many countries, not even Arab countries, recognized Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank. So who had RECOGNIZED sovereignty over the West Bank prior to 1948? ANSWER: it was part of the British Mandate. And what was the composition of the population of Palestine during the British mandate? ANSWER: it consisted of BOTH Jews and Arabs. And both people's had the right to settle anywhere within pre 1948 Palestine. So what changed? Why are Jews suddenly forbidden from settling in the West Bank, which was part of Palestine, after Israel's victory over Jordan in a defensive war?

That's the crux of Eugene Rostow's argument in favor of the legality of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. And how do his critics negate his argument? By saying that his view is the minority view. That's not a valid legal argument in my opinion. Unlike some, I will accept Only a well reasoned legal argument backed up by facts ...

I don't agree with that view. Jordan did not have anymore sovereignty over the WB than Israel does - it occupied it, and if anything if Jordan allowed Jordanians to settle there, it violated international law as well.

Let's keep in mind, by the way, that in theory the Mandate system's point was that the powers who administered the Mandates would allow the people living there to achieve self-determination and set up their respective states because it was believed that they were not able to do so on their own at the time. In this sense, international law (in the form of the League of Nations' and the United Nations' charters and the relevant UN resolutions) recognizes that Palestinians are entitled to have a state and thus as long as they don't have it whichever country controls the land is in fact occupying it.

Is this legal analysis correct, curlyg?

[Reffo]

I don't agree with that view. Jordan did not have anymore sovereignty over the WB than Israel does - it occupied it, and if anything if Jordan allowed Jordanians to settle there, it violated international law as well

unlike Israel, Jordan had no right whatsoever to occupy the West Bank because it conquered the West Bank in a war of aggression which it launched in 1948. Israel on the other hand has a right to occupy the West Bank because it ended up controlling it after another war of aggression that Jordan launched against Israel in 1967.

In the meanwhile, till such time as the final status of the West Bank is resolved (hopefully through useful negotiations) the question is which sovereign law applies in the West Bank? And Rostows answer to that question was that the British Mandate's laws apply. Whether you like it or not, watOn, under the laws of the British mandate, part of Palestine was set aside for the Jews. And since the West Bank is part of historic Palestine, it means that it too is potentially available to Jews. That was the crux of Rostows argument.

watOn, you too have the right to disagree with Rostow. But unlike curlyg, it would be nice if you would be willing to justify why you disagree with him by using logical arguments rather than just dropping names without offering coherent arguments. Don't just expect me to look up what they say. Tell us what they say and show us how they actually manage to pull apart Rostow's reasoning.

Let's keep in mind, by the way, that in theory the Mandate system's point was that the powers who administered the Mandates would allow the people living there to achieve self-determination and set up their respective states because it was believed that they were not able to do so on their own at the time. In this sense, international law (in the form of the League of Nations' and the United Nations' charters and the relevant UN resolutions) recognizes that Palestinians are entitled to have a state and thus as long as they don't have it whichever country controls the land is in fact occupying it.

Is this legal analysis correct, curlyg?

But you are forgetting that in 1947, the Palestinian Arabs were offered a state with defined borders. So were the Jews. Unlike, the Palestinian Jews, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the state. Instead, they claimed ALL of Palestine for themselves alone and they "politely" suggested that the Jews ought to be drowned in the Mediterranean sea. They continued to take that position for many years after 1947 and they accentuated their "polite" position with bloodshed and hostilities against Israel. But apparently, some people tell us that the Palestinian Arabs have now had a change of heart and are willing to accept a two state solution. Well then, let's see. Are they willing to negotiate and recognize the borders of the two states? Which may involve ceding parts of the West Bank to Israel because a lot of things happened since the Palestinians rejected the UN partition in 1947. By the way, according to the UN, plan, parts of the West Bank were to be part of the Jewish state. Not that it matters any longer because too many other things transpired since. What matters now though is a negotiated solution agreeable to both parties and which would minimise any hardship on either Arabs or Jews. Removing up to 500,000 Jewish "settlers" from the West Bank does not qualify as a "no hardship" solution. Especially if it is to be done by asserting a LIE that "the settlements" are ILLEGAL!