Government Committee: says 'Israel not occupation force'

[Reffo]

watOn

Perhaps you could start by explaining your following statement:

. 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

It seems to me that in this statement of yours, you imply that the entire West Bank belongs to Arabs and Arabs only.

Maybe you could explain to us by what magic wand did ALL of the West Bank become Arab ONLY. Given that historically, Jews always lived in the West Bank except between 1948 and 1967 because the Palestinian Arabs and their Jordanian allies ethnically cleansed the entire West Bank's Jews. Are you perhaps saying that the act of ethnically cleansing of Jews was justified? And that it turned the West Bank into sacred Arab land forever and that as a consequence, Jews now don't have a right to live where they lived before? All because of 19 years of Arab rule which ignored the rights of Jews?

Well then, if it is that simple, then maybe the Jews ought to consider doing the same thing to them? Now before you get horrified, I am not actually advocating to do that. I am just making a point which I hope will get through to you ...

[Reffo]

The so called scholars and experts who claim that Israel's settlements are illegal, base their claim on a simplistic assertion. They deem all of the West Bank as "occupied territories". That I won't necessarily debate even though a case could be made to deem only privately owned Palestinian Arab lands as "occupied" and the rest of the lands, previously privately owned Jewish lands and crown lands, as disputed lands at least. But what I will debate is their next outrageous claim that because the land is deemed to be "occupied" because of that, Jews are not allowed to settle on those lands even in places that were owned by Jews before 1948.

What people like curlyg and watOn don't realize is that by supporting those so called "unbiased" or "non misguided" experts, they open up a can of worms. What do I mean? I mean this: curlyg likes thought experiments so I invite him to think about the following thought experiment:

Let us say that soon Egypt will invide Israel (like Jordan invaded the West Bank in 1948) and will take over Beer Sheva. Let us say that they will then proceed to ethnically cleanse all Jews from Beer Sheva (like Jordan and the Palestinian Arabs cleared the West Bank in 1948). Let's say that Beer Sheva will then have only an Arab population for 19 years but after 19 years, Israel would regain Beer Sheva after an attempted further invasion by Egypt to try and conquer additional Israeli lands. Naturally, Israel's next step would be to re-populate Beer Sheva with Jews. But according to the so called experts, that would not be legitimate because they would deem Beer Sheva to be "occupied" after all, because of the earlier ethnic cleansing of Jews, by then, Beer Sheva would be populated only by Arabs. So Israel would be admonished by those sage experts for trying to build "illegal" Jewish "settlements" in Beer Sheva. And you curlyg and watOn would go along with them on that too ...?

I know the above thought experiment is just that: a thought experiment but it illustrates the principles involved in the West Bank. It illustrates how unjust is the ruling of those so called experts. Could it be therefore that the so called scholars and experts (who have many other scholars and experts disagreeing with them) are motivated by ideology, be it misguided or malicious?

[wat0n]

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.

Occupations are not by themselves legal or illegal - but they can be conducted in a legal or illegal manner.

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.

Even then, Israel is the successor state of the British Mandate in the lands west of the Green Line and north of Gaza. As such, it can't legally settle its citizens on territory it occupies - it doesn't matter if they are Jews or Arabs, by the way.

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!

Just because the Palestinians didn't agree with the two-state solution then, it doesn't mean they do not have the right to self-determination now.

I don't think Israel is obliged to remove the settlers according to international law (because of the hardship it would entail), I think it should do so because of common sense (I mean, let's be honest here: If Israel ended its military presence of the WB and the settlers were not withdrawn with the IDF, in the best case settlers would be treated like whites are treated in Zimbabwe, worst case they will be treated like the French and Jews living in Algeria were treated right after Algeria's independence - I don't think any Zionist would like to see this, right?). Of course, if Israel decided common sense is irrelevant and that Israeli citizens should be left in hand of the Palestinians, it is free to do so.

[wat0n]

watOn

Perhaps you could start by explaining your following statement:

It seems to me that in this statement of yours, you imply that the entire West Bank belongs to Arabs and Arabs only.

Maybe you could explain to us by what magic wand did ALL of the West Bank become Arab ONLY. Given that historically, Jews always lived in the West Bank except between 1948 and 1967 because the Palestinian Arabs and their Jordanian allies ethnically cleansed the entire West Bank's Jews. Are you perhaps saying that the act of ethnically cleansing of Jews was justified? And that it turned the West Bank into sacred Arab land forever and that as a consequence, Jews now don't have a right to live where they lived before? All because of 19 years of Arab rule which ignored the rights of Jews?

Well then, if it is that simple, then maybe the Jews ought to consider doing the same thing to them? Now before you get horrified, I am not actually advocating to do that. I am just making a point which I hope will get through to you ...

No, I don't think the Kfar Etzion Massacre was a good, legitimate or moral thing, and if anything it shows what would have happened had the Yishuv (and then Israel) lost the war.

So far I have only engaged in a legal analysis, not a moral one. You want a moral (and coincidentally in this case, legal) one now? Fine: No, I don't think those who were expelled from the West Bank or left it fleeing hostilities in the 1948 war have a "right" of return just like (and for the same reason) Arabs who left or were expelled from what is now Israel as a result of the same war don't have a "right" of return either. But if you disagree then I guess you wouldn't mind to be fair and allow those Arabs who left or were expelled from Israel during the 1948 war to move to Israel, would you?

PS: Regarding the hypothetical situation in which an Arab state occupied Be'er Sheba and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population from there, and then 19 years later Israel managed to retake it and end the occupation, it would be within its rights to re-settle it - after all, it is and was always part of its territory, unlike the West Bank.

[Reffo]

Occupations are not by themselves legal or illegal - but they can be conducted in a legal or illegal manner

On that we are in agreement.

Even then, Israel is the successor state of the British Mandate in the lands west of the Green Line and north of Gaza. As such, it can't legally settle its citizens on territory it occupies - it doesn't matter if they are Jews or Arabs, by the way

Well then you are obviously prepared to ignore the entire history of the West Bank and every reason that I presented which negates your assertion. Like I said, you are entitled to disagree but it would be nice if you offered logical reasons which demonstrate why I am wrong when I disagree with you.

Just because the Palestinians didn't agree with the two-state solution then, it doesn't mean they do not have the right to self-determination now

Did I say that they are not entitled to self determination? Of course I didn't. We are not arguing about that. We are arguing about the Jewish "settlements" in the West Bank. I disagree that all the Jewish "settlements" in the West Bank are illegal.

I don't think Israel is obliged to remove the settlers according to international law (because of the hardship it would entail), I think it should do so because of common sense (I mean, let's be honest here: If Israel ended its military presence of the WB and the settlers were not withdrawn with the IDF, in the best case settlers would be treated like whites are treated in Zimbabwe, worst case they will be treated like the French and Jews living in Algeria were treated right after Algeria's independence - I don't think any Zionist would like to see this, right?). Of course, if Israel decided common sense is irrelevant and that Israeli citizens should be left in hand of the Palestinians, it is free to do so.

You are assuming that the "settlements" cannot end up as part of Israel. Obviously you have not heard about the idea of land swaps.

[Reffo]

No, I don't think the Kfar Etzion Massacre was a good, legitimate or moral thing, and if anything it shows what would have happened had the Yishuv (and then Israel) lost the war

That's true. But that is not the point that I tried to convey to you. The point that I tried to make was that Jews too lived in the West Bank before 1948. And therefore Jews who returned there after Israel's 1967 victory, do not constitute an alien population transfer. It constitutes a popularion re-claiming their rights.

So far I have only engaged in a legal analysis, not a moral one. You want a moral (and coincidentally in this case, legal) one now? Fine: No, I don't think those who were expelled from the West Bank or left it fleeing hostilities in the 1948 war have a "right" of return just like (and for the same reason) Arabs who left or were expelled from what is now Israel as a result of the same war don't have a "right" of return either. But if you disagree then I guess you wouldn't mind to be fair and allow those Arabs who left or were expelled from Israel during the 1948 war to move to Israel, would you?

Actually, I was also engaging in a legal discussion only, not a moral one. As such, I wasn't talking about "a right to return". If I would be, then I would agree with you that BOTH sets of populations have a theoretical right to return. However, both parties too have a right to refuse that return. Of course, Israel will refuse that right of return on a very legal basis (we can discuss it further if you wish). And yes, the Arabs too can try to refuse the return of Jews to the West Bank but if they can't make that refusal to stick and the Jews DO return, as they have, then that return is NOT illegal for the reasons that I already explained above.

The point is that ultimately only a negotiated solution is practical. But inventing lies which pretend that the Jewish "settlements" are illegal, will not improve the chances of a negotiated solution. It will only hinder progress.

PS: Regarding the hypothetical situation in which an Arab state occupied Be'er Sheba and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population from there, and then 19 years later Israel managed to retake it and end the occupation, it would be within its rights to re-settle it - after all, it is and was always part of its territory, unlike the West Bank

That's true. And conversely, it is also true that the West Bank was never a sovereign Palestinian 'Arab only' state. It always had a mixed Arab AND Jewish population and since Israel's 1967 victory, it returned to that status. And there is therefore nothing illegal about it. Nothing illegal about the Jewish "settlements".

[Reffo]

Even then, Israel is the successor state of the British Mandate in the lands west of the Green Line and north of Gaza. As such, it can't legally settle its citizens on territory it occupies - it doesn't matter if they are Jews or Arabs

I get it. So because Israel is deemed to be an "occupier" it cannot restore the population to the mix that it was prior to the Arab occupation of the same land?

Ok then, does it work the other way around too? Let's try this thought experiment:

What if Israel would do, to the Arabs, twhat the Palestinian Arab militias and the Jordanian Army did to the Jews in 1948? Israel could ethnically cleanse the West Bank of it's Arab population. That would be illigal of course in the same way that it was illegal to ethnically cleanse the West Bank of Jews in 1948. Nevertheless the Arabs did it.

Let's say that Israel would rule the West Bank for 19 years which by then would have a Jewish population approaching a million and no Arabs. Suppose that after 19 years, the Arabs would conquer the West Bank and start settling it with Arabs. Would they too be then deemed as occupiers who have no right to import their Arab population to the "occupied territories"? Would it be valid to label the Arabs as illegal settlers? According to your logic, watOn, you should say a resounding yes! And I would disagree with you about that too.

[dayag]

...You are assuming that the "settlements" cannot end up as part of Israel. Obviously you have not heard about the idea of land swaps.

I beg to differ, Reffo. The West Bank is not occupied territory that belongs to the Palestinians for which they must be compensated for any territories retained by Israel. It is disputed territory to which Israel has valid claims in International Law (San Remo Conference, Article 80 of the UN Charter, etc.). If we were to give them 90% and retain 10% for security reasons and to protect those Jews who have returned to the heart of our ancestral homeland, we would be being extremely generous to those who are to this day not ready to recognize the right of the Jewish state to live in peace.

[Reffo]

I beg to differ, Reffo. The West Bank is not occupied territory that belongs to the Palestinians for which they must be compensated for any territories retained by Israel. It is disputed territory to which Israel has valid claims in International Law (San Remo Conference, Article 80 of the UN Charter, etc.). If we were to give them 90% and retain 10% for security reasons and to protect those Jews who have returned to the heart of our ancestral homeland, we would be being extremely generous to those who are to this day not ready to recognize the right of the Jewish state to live in peace.

I agree with you that the West Bank is disputed territory. But if it ever comes to a potential negotiated solution, I don't believe that it would be helpful if Israel adopted the attitude that it would leave the Palestinian Arabs with minimum lands. For the sake of a viable peace agreement, Israel could afford to be pragmatic and cede some land in lieu of the lands that it would keep.

I agree that Israel is not obliged to do it. However it may be well advised to do it. Anyway, right now none of that is relevant because the Palestinian Arabs don't seem to display any inclination to compromise with Israel. So it does not make sense for Israel to make concessions to them either.

But this thread is about the legitimacy of "the settlements". So what do you think about that little thought experiment that I posed to watOn? And what happened to curlyg? He likes thought experiments but now he seems to have made himself scarce. I guess he must be a very busy man ...

[curlyg]

Just stating in advance: I haven't read all of the posts that followed mine above, because I've been busy. However, in this post I'll be posting the comments of some reputable legal scholars on this issue. Before I do that, I'd like to clarify why I am engaging in so-called 'name-dropping', as Reffo calls it. Think of it as international law 101. International law derives from a number of sources. Those sources are listed in article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ. They are:

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

Therefore, citing people who are eminent authorities in a certain field of law carries a certain weight under international law, that goes beyond merely citing a generic international lawyer or law student, or random forum poster. As with all legal systems, identifying authoritative statements of the law is very important, and so the views of eminent legal scholars have a special position.

Now let's consider some specific comments made by legal authorities.

-----------

Eyal Benvenisti, a prominent Israeli law professor, writes in 'The International Law of Occupation':

'Aside from the economic, social and political effects of the creation of Israeli enclaves in the territories, the question of the intrinsic legality of such enclaves under the law of occupation arises. The conventional debate regarding the legality of Israeli settlements in the territories revolves around Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that the "Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The settlement policy has been criticised by the United Nations, the ICRC, and various countries and commentators. On the other hand, an Israeli interpretation of this article asserted that the settlements did not contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention since "Arab inhabitants have not been displaced by Israeli settlements", and that the article "refers to State actions by which the government in control transfers parts of its population to the territory concerned. This cannot be construed to cover the voluntary movement of individuals... of their own volition as an expression of their personal choice." This interpretation is doubtful, since it seems that the purpose of the article is to protect the interests of the occupied population, rather than the population of the occupant. But assuming it were correct, this interpretation does not explain from where the occupant derives the legal power to undertake a massive settlement such as that which the Israeli government planned and nurtured, as described above. It is also questionable whether the settlement policy is in line with Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, since this policy cannot be deemed to be a matter of security of the occupation forces, and it is even more difficult to demonstrate its contribution to to "public order and civil life".

Aside from this debate... Israel [must have] had a better title over the territories and therefore [be] entitled to assume sovereignty over them... [to] be able to argue that the practice is legal.'

Yoram Dinstein writes, in a 1994 law journal article on the Arab-Israeli conflict:

'The trouble with many Israelis today is that they impale themselves on the horns of inconsistency. Every Israeli takes it for granted that the territory west of the so-called Green Line (the Armistice Line) constitutes Israeli territory beyond any question or doubt. Yet, if so, why does the territory east of the same line not belong to Jordan, to wit, the other signatory of the same Armistice Agreement which established the Green Line in the first place?

... Israel, which occupied the West Bank from Jordan, cannot ignore Jordanian rights in and over the region. Jordan has accepted the idea of the PLO negotiating with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians in the occupied territories...

On the settlements specifically, commenting on the jurisprudence of the Israeli Supreme Court, he wrote in a Tel-Aviv University Law Review article (in Hebrew, translation my own):

Article 49(6) of the [Fourth] Geneva Convention touches on the core of the question of civilian settlement [in the occupied territories]. According to this rule, it is prohibited for an occupying state to transfer parts of its civilian population into occupied territory. The emphasis here is on the transfer and civilian nature of the population. Accordingly, on the one hand, there is no obstacle to the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank if they are required by military necessity and governed as are ordinary military installations. On the other hand, there is no defect in the establishment of outposts which are not directed from above [by government], on land purchased on the open market from local residents. When a clearly civilian settlement is established in the West Bank, under a direct decision of the Israeli government and entailing the expropriation of private land, it is difficult not to regard this as a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Continued in the next post...

[curlyg]

Antonio Cassese, who was a leading international jurist, writes in The Human Dimension of International Law:

The prohibition on using land belonging to the occupied state or to its inhabitants for purposes other than those referred to above (military needs of the occupant, etc.) is strengthened by Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which provides that 'the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.' This provision is but the logical corollary of the requirement of customary international law whereby the occupant is not allowed to use the property of the occupied country, or of its inhabitants, for the furtherance of its own economic or other interests. Plainly, the transfer of civilians from the occupying state into the occupied territory cannot but serve economic, social or 'strategic' needs of the occupying state as such. To this extent it is strictly prohibited.

The majority of judges in the ICJ have found:

As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not dlrport or transfer parts of its ow11 civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only depor- tations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to oirganize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.

In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has condiucted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited

Rosalyn Higgins, in her separate opinion in the Wall case before the ICJ, wrote:

... it should not escape attention that the Court has in the event found violations only of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (para. 120), and of Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (para. 132). 1 agree with these findings. [curlyg: note that article 49 deals with transfer of civilian population, i.e. the settlements]

Thomas Buergenthal, who dissented against the court's final ruling, stated:

Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigen- cies. It provides that "the Occupying Powcr shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6.

Adam Roberts, writing in the American Journal of International Law, writes:

In accordance with the view that occupation is a provisional state of affairs, the imposition of demographic changes within the occupied territory have long been seen as undesirable. The fourth Geneva Convention appears to be precisely on the question, stating as it does that... "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

... As with deportations, so with settlements: there have been some claims that Israeli practices are compatible with international norms, including those of the fourth Geneva Convention. A distinction has been drawn between the transfer of people - which is forbidden under article 49 - and the voluntary settlement of nationals on an individual basis; and it has been asserted that there is nothing wrong with settlements in the sense of army bases where soldiers are engaged in agriculture for part of the time. Civilian settlements have also been called necessary for the occupying power's security, and therefore essential if the occupying power is to preserve public order and safety.

Such arguments are far from convincing. In particular, even if voluntary settlement of nationals on an individual basis were permissible under article 49, the ambitious settlement program of the 1980s, which was planned, encouraged and financed at the governmental level, does not meet that description. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the settlement program was primarily intended to contribute to the occupying power's security and whether, in any event, it has contributed to that end; by causing friction with the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories, the program may even have added to the work of the IDF. The settlement program is quite simply contrary to international law.

There are dozens more like this, but I trust I've made the point -- which I suspect will be swiftly dismissed by most posters here.

[curlyg]

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?

That's not a claim I made. In fact I specifically said in the following post that the High Court has ruled the territory occupied, and I would look into its specific position on settlements as such. That is reflected in the quote from Dinstein in my post above - basically it takes the view that settlements are prima facie illegal as a matter of international law unless they are justified by military necessity. At least that is my understanding - I don't claim to be an expert on Israeli law or the case law of the Israeli Supreme Court.

Even so, I suspect your demand for 'proof' is now satisfied, given that I spent way too long typing out all those quotes from books and journals to satisfy your very high standard, that you yourself haven't lived up to...

[curlyg]

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?!!!

I actually don't agree with the final decision of the ICJ on the issue of the wall. I agree with the dissenting judgement of Judge Buergenthal, who said the court did not have the necessary detailed information before it to decide the issue. I also agree with Buergenthal and a number of other judges on some technical points of law which the majority neglected, which I don't think there's any point going into in detail here. In short, I think that it is impossible to rule that the wall as a whole is illegal without considering whether each of its segments satisfies the requirements of military necessity, which is what the majority of the court did. But I do agree with the general legal framework they described - namely that the territories are governed by the law of belligerent occupation, which again, is something with which the Israeli Supreme Court agrees fully.

[curlyg]

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?

Honestly, it's hard to say. The question of the status of the land between 1948 and 1967 is contested and fairly ambiguous. You're right regarding the purpose of the mandate system. As regards the legal title to the territory though, the situation is unclear... There are a couple of possible interpretations. First, we might say that Jordan was an occupier up until 1967 - as you say. But this seems very problematic to me. If its status was that of an occupier, then presumably it had no greater title than that of an occupier - in which case we must ask, who had better title than Jordan? The better view, which I think is expressed in the Dinstein quote in my post above, is that the Green Line represents a boundary - so that Israel acquired title to the land west of the armistice line, Jordan acquired title to the land east of the armistice line, and Egypt acquired title to Gaza. Jordan and Egypt have since renounced their territorial claims and recognised the right of the Palestinians, in exercising their self-determination, to claim those territories. This seems like the most consistent interpretation to me, in which case Jordan was not actually an occupier in those lands any more than Israel is an occupier of the parts of the land which it acquired in the 1948 war but which were not given to it under the partition resolution.

However, the question is purely academic. It has no practical relevance because the status of the territory post-1967 is much clearer. Israel had no prior possession or title to the West Bank, and it acquired the territory in armed conflict. It can only be an occupying power. The West Bank and Gaza are not claimed by any state - including Israel - and any state which might have had claims to them (Jordan and Egypt) have renounced them in favour of the Palestinians, who are seeking to exercise their right under international law to self-determination.

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.

This idea of a "right to occupy" lacks any foundation in international law. States have sovereignty over territory where they can show good title to it. Since we accept that the partition resolution had no legal force, there was a sovereignty vacuum in the territories, so that those states that took control of the territory of Palestine acquired sovereignty over it. This is my interpretation, but it is supported by the fact that Israeli courts continue to apply Jordanian law in the West Bank, which is treated by Israeli courts as occupied territory rather than liberated territory to which Israel has good title.

Maybe you could explain to us by what magic wand did ALL of the West Bank become Arab ONLY. Given that historically, Jews always lived in the West Bank except between 1948 and 1967 because the Palestinian Arabs and their Jordanian allies ethnically cleansed the entire West Bank's Jews. Are you perhaps saying that the act of ethnically cleansing of Jews was justified? And that it turned the West Bank into sacred Arab land forever and that as a consequence, Jews now don't have a right to live where they lived before? All because of 19 years of Arab rule which ignored the rights of Jews?

I have responded to this kind of reasoning several times, and yet you've completely ignored my responses. You complain about name dropping but when I offer substantive criticisms of your positions you just ignore it. Individual Jews were expelled from their homes. This was a violation of their individual rights, for which they are entitled to individual remedies. The fact that some Jews lived in some parts of the West Bank does not mean that the Israeli government can now permit all Jews to settle anywhere in the West Bank under international law. This argument is just absurd.

I mean this: curlyg likes thought experiments so I invite him to think about the following thought experiment:

Let us say that soon Egypt will invide Israel (like Jordan invaded the West Bank in 1948) and will take over Beer Sheva. Let us say that they will then proceed to ethnically cleanse all Jews from Beer Sheva (like Jordan and the Palestinian Arabs cleared the West Bank in 1948). Let's say that Beer Sheva will then have only an Arab population for 19 years but after 19 years, Israel would regain Beer Sheva after an attempted further invasion by Egypt to try and conquer additional Israeli lands. Naturally, Israel's next step would be to re-populate Beer Sheva with Jews. But according to the so called experts, that would not be legitimate because they would deem Beer Sheva to be "occupied" after all, because of the earlier ethnic cleansing of Jews, by then, Beer Sheva would be populated only by Arabs. So Israel would be admonished by those sage experts for trying to build "illegal" Jewish "settlements" in Beer Sheva. And you curlyg and watOn would go along with them on that too ...?

This is actually very simple...

You can trace the legal status very easily.

At the start of the scenario, Israel has good legal title to Be'er Sheva. Egypt then invaded and occupied Be'er Sheva, so it has the status of a belligerent occupant (Israel still retains a better legal title). It expels Jews, thereby violating their individual property and human rights, for which those Jews are entitled, as individuals, to redress. Israel then invades and regains Be'er Sheva, plus additional Egyptian lands. Since Israel has the better title, the Egyptian occupation of Be'er Sheva comes to an end and Israel exercises its rightful sovereignty to repopulate Be'er Sheva. Israel is NOT a belligerent occupant of Be'er Sheva. Any additional territory which Israel conquered from Egypt, within Egypt's prior borders, would be occupied territory where Israel has the status of a belligerent occupant and Egypt has sovereign title.

So in this case repopulating Be'er Sheva is legal, whereas transferring Israel's population to the West Bank is not. This is because Israel is an occupying power in the West Bank, whereas it would not be an occupying power in Be'er Sheva.

[wat0n]

Honestly, it's hard to say. The question of the status of the land between 1948 and 1967 is contested and fairly ambiguous. You're right regarding the purpose of the mandate system. As regards the legal title to the territory though, the situation is unclear... There are a couple of possible interpretations. First, we might say that Jordan was an occupier up until 1967 - as you say. But this seems very problematic to me. If its status was that of an occupier, then presumably it had no greater title than that of an occupier - in which case we must ask, who had better title than Jordan? The better view, which I think is expressed in the Dinstein quote in my post above, is that the Green Line represents a boundary - so that Israel acquired title to the land west of the armistice line, Jordan acquired title to the land east of the armistice line, and Egypt acquired title to Gaza. Jordan and Egypt have since renounced their territorial claims and recognised the right of the Palestinians, in exercising their self-determination, to claim those territories. This seems like the most consistent interpretation to me, in which case Jordan was not actually an occupier in those lands any more than Israel is an occupier of the parts of the land which it acquired in the 1948 war but which were not given to it under the partition resolution.

I'm not sure about this, I'm thinking for example in the case of Namibia - a former Mandate territory under the responsibility of South Africa which came to be seen as occupied territory under South African control once the UN terminated the Mandate, even though no other state claimed it or controlled it. Why couldn't the same logic apply to the West Bank?

But yes, it is a complicated matter. After all, it is not only the territory Israel acquired after the 1948 war that would have an unclear status - all of Jerusalem, Shu'fat, Abu Dis and Bethlehem could also be argued to be under an unclear status, after all according to the partition resolution and UNGA res 194 they could be a Corpus Separatum even though no one argues for this nowadays, and for a good reason...

However, the question is purely academic. It has no practical relevance because the status of the territory post-1967 is much clearer. Israel had no prior possession or title to the West Bank, and it acquired the territory in armed conflict. It can only be an occupying power. The West Bank and Gaza are not claimed by any state - including Israel - and any state which might have had claims to them (Jordan and Egypt) have renounced them in favour of the Palestinians, who are seeking to exercise their right under international law to self-determination.

Maybe, but then I'd expect some people to ask why is the West Bank - all of it, including east Jerusalem - still considered to be occupied if Israel is the only state that has a claim of parts of it. I think this has more than only an academic importance, it is at the very least important politically and by extension diplomatically as well.