Government Committee: says 'Israel not occupation force'

[Reffo]

curlyg

First: Thank you for presenting the actual quotes of some of the legal experts that you mentioned previously. I need to read them more carefully but at a first glance, none of those opinions explains why the legal opinions of the experts that I quoted, Eugene Rostow in particular and also professor Julius Stone, are invalid. If you recall, that's what I asked you to do at the beginning of the thread, to give logical legal reasons why Rostow's opinions should be discounted. And you seemed to imply that it has been done by your legal experts.

Second:

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

Yes, you mentioned this on this thread as well as on other threads but you missed Rostow's point. Therefore your answer is irrelevant. Let me restate Rostow's legal opinion in a nutshell (for the umpteenth time). He said that since there never was a recognized sovereign Palestinian Arab state in any area of Palestine and the last recognized sovereign entity over the West Bank was the British Mandate, then the laws of the British Mandate apply in the West Bank. According to those laws, the whole of Palestine, including the West Bank, was earmarked for BOTH Jews and Arabs. Even though Israel is now a recognized sovereign entity, it actually retained the spirit of the British Mandate's law. Israel has both Jewish and Arab citizens. However, the Palestinian Arabs together with the Jordanians, got rid of the Jewish population of the West Bank in 1948. By your own admission that act was illegal on that, most reasonable people agree. The point that you seem to miss is the remedy. What is the remedy to restore the legal status in the West Bank? What it isn't is not just to allow the return of specific Jewish individuals who lived there. It is more than that. It is to restore the population mix of the West Bank. How? By at least allowing Jews to settle in parts of the West Bank where Jewish communities existed prior to 1948. And more than that. Since the laws of the British mandate allowed Jews to purchase land in Palestine, any settlements on any legally purchsed lands should be permissible. According to Rostow, the Geneva convention has not been transgressed in the West Bank because the West Bank was always meant to have a Jewish population.

Here is the most important point why your legal experts are being just simplistic about their claim that Israel has been contravening the Geneva convention. They have NOT, because all Israel did was to allow individual Jews or Jewish organizations to purchase land in the West Bank. A practice that was permissible under the laws of the British Mandate. Israel has never forcefully transferred any Israeli citizen to the West Bank. That, by the way, would have been the only way to transgress the Geneva convention according to professor Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow. I stress the word FORCEFUL.

Of course, once a negotiated peace deal would be reached and signed, the laws of the British Mandate would be superceeded and replaced by the laws of the new entity (probably the new Palestinian Arab state). Jordan's laws never really applied because they were occupiers. As I previously pointed out to you, hardly anyone recognized Jordanian sovereignity over the West Bank. In that regard, their "sovereignity" had no more recognition than the lack of international recognition of Israel's sovereignity.

Last but not least curlyg, please answer the second thought experiment which I presented in my post #37, because it too makes an important point.

Thank you.

[curlyg]

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?

You're probably right - and I have sen pro-Palestinian legal commentators (which I haven't quoted here because they would just be dismissed as propagandists) argue along these lines, noting the comments of the ICJ in the Western Sahara and Namibia cases regarding self-determination being a peremptory rule and the mandates being a sacred trust of civilisation intended to ensure the self-determination of the governed peoples.

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...

Right, but I do not think it is right to say that the UNGA resolution conveyed any kind of legal title.

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.

I don't think Israel is the only state that has claims to it - as I indicated I think Jordan and Egypt have better legal claims than Israel to the West Bank and Gaza respectively, which they have renounced in favour of Palestinian self-determination.

[Reffo]

I don't think Israel is the only state that has claims to it - as I indicated I think Jordan and Egypt have better legal claims than Israel to the West Bank and Gaza respectively,

Really? On what basis?

[Reffo]

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

Your story begs the question: In the case of the West Bank, who has the legal title to the West Bank? The answer is that there is no clear cut answer to that because the last sovereign power of the West Bank was the British Mandate which no longer exists but it's laws still apply there. Legally, the Palestinian Arabs have no greater claim to the West Bank (or parts of it) than the Jewish people. So, the West Bank is best classified as disputed territory whose status has yet to be resolved as part of the negotiating process. That's what UN Resolution 242 stated.

[curlyg]

curlyg

First: Thank you for presenting the actual quotes of some of the legal experts that you mentioned previously. I need to read them more carefully but at a first glance, none of those opinions explains why the legal opinions of the experts that I quoted, Eugene Rostow in particular and also professor Julius Stone, are invalid. If you recall, that's what I asked you to do at the beginning of the thread, to give logical legal reasons why Rostow's opinions should be discounted. And you seemed to imply that it has been done by your legal experts.

Rostow's legal argument is, frankly, a little bizarre. It's NOT the same argument that Julius Stone makes, and I'm not aware of prominent legal commentators that have given it much attention. Those quotes are relevant to Stone's legal analysis though. Some academics have also gone through Stone's reasoning step by step (a freely available academic article from the University of Sydney, for example, is available here - I'll avoid giving links to academic journals where possible because you need a paid subscription to read them). By the way I am not saying that I agree with all the views expressed in the article I just linked, I'm just contesting the notion that somehow the views of these scholars have gone unchallenged.

He said that since there never was a recognized sovereign Palestinian Arab state in any area of Palestine and the last recognized sovereign entity over the West Bank was the British Mandate, then the laws of the British Mandate apply in the West Bank.

Let's ASSUME, for the sake of argument that this is correct - even though I don't agree with it and neither do the prominent commentators I posted, see the comments of Yoram Dinstein re who the last sovereign in the territory was - in his view (and mine), Jordan. This view is supported by the fact that Israel continues to apply Jordanian law in the West Bank.

According to those laws, the whole of Palestine, including the West Bank, was earmarked for BOTH Jews and Arabs.

Yes, you've said this many times. I've yet to see specific law on the books that says "Jews have a right to settle anywhere in Palestine irrespective of whether the land is public or private" - you certainly haven't pointed me to one.

Even though Israel is now a recognized sovereign entity, it actually retained the spirit of the British Mandate's law. Israel has both Jewish and Arab citizens. However, the Palestinian Arabs together with the Jordanians, got rid of the Jewish population of the West Bank in 1948. By your own admission that act was illegal on that, most reasonable people agree. The point that you seem to miss is the remedy. What is the remedy to restore the legal status in the West Bank? What it isn't is not just to allow the return of specific Jewish individuals who lived there. It is more than that. It is to restore the population mix of the West Bank.

I don't know if this is what Rostow actually says - I suspect it is not. If it is, it is baseless. You just rejected my fairly well established point that violations of individual human rights entail individual remedies only, and reasserted your entirely Unsubstantiated view that they somehow give rise to a right of massive settlement throughout a territory. It's a really bizarre argument and I'm surprised you actually subscribe to it so readily.

How? By at least allowing Jews to settle in parts of the West Bank where Jewish communities existed prior to 1948.

By what legal authority? Because is just seems like the historically correct thing to do? That's not a legal argument. The question is whether Israel has the legal authority to establish settlements throughout the West Bank, which is occupied territory. The answer is clearly no, as all the legal commentators I quoted largely agree. If individuals and families lost their homes because of violations of their rights, they should be entitled to recover them. This does not mean all Jews now have unlimited rights over Palestinian land.

And more than that. Since the laws of the British mandate allowed Jews to purchase land in Palestine, any settlements on any legally purchsed lands should be permissible. According to Rostow, the Geneva convention has not been transgressed in the West Bank because the West Bank was always meant to have a Jewish population.

Again, a fairly baseless legal argument. Even if we accept that the laws of the British mandate apply, and even if we accept that the expulsion of Jews gives rise to a right for any Jew to settle anywhere in Palestine (I feel absurd just saying that), and even if we accept that there is a specific law on the books in the Palestinian territory that gives Jews the right to settle in Palestine (which despite asserting, you have yet to prove) -- this still would not allow Israel to escape its obligations under international law, which entails a prohibition of transferring its population to the West Bank. I have said it before and I will say it again, it is a really basic principle of international law that you can't rely on the domestic laws of a country to violate international law. Even if Palestine's domestic law gives Jews a right to unlimited settlement, international law still prohibits Israel from transferring its population into the occupied territory... There's a reason nobody but Rostow has relied on this argument - it makes very little sense.

Here is the most important point why your legal experts are being just simplistic about their claim that Israel has been contravening the Geneva convention. They have NOT, because all Israel did was to allow individual Jews or Jewish organizations to purchase land in the West Bank.

Not true. As all the commentators note, the settlements were established as part of a deliberate government policy with heavy government subsidies and backing. This is not just a bunch of random individuals moving into the territory for no apparent reason.

A practice that was permissible under the laws of the British Mandate.

See above.

Israel has never forcefully transferred any Israeli citizen to the West Bank. That, by the way, would have been the only way to transgress the Geneva convention according to professor Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow. I stress the word FORCEFUL.

Do you see the word 'forceful' in the text of article 49(6)? Under the law of treaty interpretation, a treaty is to be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms in context and in light of their object and purpose. That extremely narrow interpretation has no basis in the text or context of the treaty, it reads in words that just aren't there, and more importantly it is contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty, as noted in several of my quotes above, which is to provide broad protections to the population of an occupied territory, not to provide rights or protections to the population of an occupier to settle as they please. The purpose of the provision is to prevent changes to the demographic composition of occupied territory - which of course is the exact purpose of the settlements.

[curlyg]

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.

It depends what you mean by 'the Arabs'. If Jordan conquered the West Bank and began to settle it with Jordanians, we would face a very unclear situation. It is arguable, as I've said, that Jordan had title - however it renounced it in favour of the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination in the territory. As a result, I would say that in this case Jordan would be an occupier and it would be prohibited for it to settle its population in the territory. However, the fact that Israel would have 'ruled the West Bank for 19 years' would not make it rightfully Israeli territory, even if there were not a single Arab in it. The law governing international boundaries generally doesn't take into account the racial composition of territory (except in cases where self-determination is relevant).

[Reffo]

Thank you curlyg (NOT)!!!

You chopped off (neutered) the thought experiment that I presented in my #37 and quoted only part of it. Then proceeded to give me a NON answer. So, here is my post #37 in it's entirity. Do you want to address it? Or would you rather just obfuscate?

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.

So far, your only relevant (somewhat) answer to my question was your following:

. However, the fact that Israel would have 'ruled the West Bank for 19 years' would not make it rightfully Israeli territory, even if there were not a single Arab in it. The law governing international boundaries generally doesn't take into account the racial composition of territory (except in cases where self-determination is relevant)

And it begs the question: If 19 years of Israeli rule over the West Bank with ONLY a Jewish population (no Arab population) would not render that land Jewish ONLY land, then why oh why does 19 year of Jordanian rule over the land renders it an Arab only land?

Also, what if the Jordanians if they would re-conquer the land after 19 years of Israeli rule, what if they would try to re-populate the West Bank with Palestinian Arabs? Would those Palestinian Arabs too be labelled as illegal settlers? Just to clarify, let's say those Palestinian Arabs never lived in the West Bank.

[curlyg]

Really? On what basis?

I take as the starting point that the partition resolution had no binding legal force. When the mandate was abolished there was a vacuum of sovereignty which was filled by Israel, Egypt and Jordan in parts of Palestine, and they acquired sovereign rights over the territory in their possession. This is why the territories that Israel conquered which are outside of the partition boundaries are regarded as its sovereign territory. That's my view, in any case, and it has some support from Dinstein and probably others. It seems like the most coherent interpretation to me. Dinstein discusses this point in the journal article I posted a link to - but again you need a paid subscription to have full access unfortunately... I don't want to type out huge chunks of the article, but if there are any specific points I can search for 1 or 2 paragraphs to extract here.

Your story begs the question: In the case of the West Bank, who has the legal title to the West Bank? The answer is that there is no clear cut answer to that because the last sovereign power of the West Bank was the British Mandate which no longer exists but it's laws still apply there. Legally, the Palestinian Arabs have no greater claim to the West Bank (or parts of it) than the Jewish people. So, the West Bank is best classified as disputed territory whose status has yet to be resolved as part of the negotiating process. That's what UN Resolution 242 stated.

It is not actually relevant who has legal title to the West Bank (i.e. whether it is Jordan or the Palestinian people or whatever) - all we need to answer is whether Israel has legal title. It does not, and it came into possession of the territory by armed conflict. We need not enquire as to its precise status, we know that Israel's status is that of an occupying power. That is sufficient to determine the law governing the territory.

[curlyg]

Thank you curlyg (NOT)!!!

You chopped off (neutered) the thought experiment that I presented in my #37 and quoted only part of it. Then proceeded to give me a NON answer. So, here is my post #37 in it's entirity. Do you want to address it? Or would you rather just obfuscate?

... I have no idea what you're talking about. My response is exactly the same as it was previously. How does the additional text you quoted change the scenario?

EDIT:

Ok, I'll go through it again anyway.

In your scenario:

- Israel, the occupying power, expels the Arab population of the West Bank, violating their individual rights, and giving rise to rights to individual redress (but note that this is not entirely correct because here we would be talking about the expulsion of the entire Palestinian people which means that there has also been a violation of their right to self-determination because they are now unable to achieve independent statehood. But we will not consider that here, we'll leave it as a matter of individual rights for the purpose of your experiment).
- Israel, as the occupier, continues to rule the West Bank for 19 years and builds up its Jewish population (again, illegally)
- After 19 years, "the Arabs" - who you haven't defined, conquer the territory. Let's assume this is Jordan.

The question is whether Jordan now has a right to repopulate the territory with Arabs. The answer is complicated.

(1) The individual inhabitants who were expelled and their families may be able to enforce their individual property rights and return to the territory, depending on whether Jordanian domestic law gave them that option.

(2) Jordan could NOT simply transfer massive amounts of Jordanians to the territory UNLESS it can show that it has good title to the territory, and is not merely an occupying power. In this case, I suspect Jordan would be an occupying power because it has renounced its claims in favour of the Palestinian people. Accordingly, mass transfer of Jordanian or other random unconnected Arabs to Palestine would be illegal.

[Reffo]

... I have no idea what you're talking about. My response is exactly the same as it was previously. How does the additional text you quoted change the scenario?

Well then read my post #52 again. While you were writing your above post, I was still editing mine and I included a clarification of what you missed to answer.

Maybe you could try again? Third time lucky, maybe ...?

[curlyg]

And it begs the question: If 19 years of Israeli rule over the West Bank with ONLY a Jewish population (no Arab population) would not render that land Jewish ONLY land, then why oh why does 19 year of Jordanian rule over the land renders it an Arab only land?

It doesn't render it 'Arab only land'. You are attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to turn this into a question of race. It has nothing to do with race. It's not Jewish-free, any more than it is black-free or Georgian-free or American-free. The point is not to say that Jews, because they are Jews, have no right to live in Palestine. The point is to say that ANY occupying power, which in this case happens to be Israel, is not allowed to transfer its population into the occupied territory (this includes, for example, Israeli Arabs or Israeli Bedouin, because they are Israeli nationals). If the occupying power were Japan, it wouldn't be allowed to transfer Japanese nationals into Palestine - this isn't because international law hates Japanese people, it's because they're specifically prohibited as the occupying power from transferring their nationals into the territory. An occupation is meant to be a short-term state of affairs and the occupying power is not allowed to do a whole range of things that will fundamentally change the character of the occupied territory - e.g. certain kinds of resource use, not allowed to change the laws in force, not allowed to change the demographic composition of the territory, etc.

Also, what if the Jordanians if they would re-conquer the land after 19 years of Israeli rule, what if they would try to re-populate the West Bank with Palestinian Arabs? Would those Palestinian Arabs too be labelled as illegal settlers? Just to clarify, let's say those Palestinian Arabs never lived in the West Bank.

If they have individual property rights, e.g. they can show a right to possession of certain land (e.g. if they hadn't lived there themselves, but their parents had, and the parents had conveyed the rights to the property to their descendants) then certainly they will have a right to live in the land.

Now, whether Jordan could repopulate the West Bank with Palestinians who had no historical connection whatever to the territory is less clear (and also a very strange suggestion - since we've just assumed that Israel expelled millions of Palestinians that used to live there - where did they all go?). Arguably it could not do so, since it is an occupying power. However, it could be argued that in view of Palestinians' as of yet unfulfilled right to self-determination, and the fact that Jordan would not be transferring its own population/nationals but rather Palestinian nationals into the territory, it may be permissible. I can't claim to give you an authoritative legal opinion on the matter. But this is a completely different situation to the one that Israel finds itself in, where it is clearly transferring its own population into the occupied territory in clear violation of the rule.

[Reffo]

Rostow's legal argument is, frankly, a little bizarre

That is only an opinion. What it isn't it's not a logical argument.

It's NOT the same argument that Julius Stone makes

That's right but they both have argued for the same conclusion, using different arguments. Is there anything wrong with that?

and I'm not aware of prominent legal commentators that have given it much attention. Those quotes are relevant to Stone's legal analysis though.

And that's a reason to just dismiss their arguments? I mean BOTH professor Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow are prominent on their own right. I listed their credentials earlier on this thread.

Some academics have also gone through Stone's reasoning step by step (a freely available academic article from the University of Sydney, for example, is available here - I'll avoid giving links to academic journals where possible because you need a paid subscription to read them). By the way I am not saying that I agree with all the views expressed in the article I just linked, I'm just contesting the notion that somehow the views of these scholars have gone unchallenged.

Those opinions are not available elsewhere on the net? Only on subscribed sites? And you have no one who has gone through Rostow's arguments with a list of valid objections? Could it be because they have no valid arguments against Rostow's point of view? Anyway, I will look at the link that you DID provide and will come back with feedback.

[Reffo]

It doesn't render it 'Arab only land'. You are attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to turn this into a question of race.

Unsuccessfully? That's just another one of your opinions.

It has nothing to do with race. It's not Jewish-free, any more than it is black-free or Georgian-free or American-free. The point is not to say that Jews, because they are Jews, have no right to live in Palestine. The point is to say that ANY occupying power, which in this case happens to be Israel, is not allowed to transfer its population into the occupied territory (this includes, for example, Israeli Arabs or Israeli Bedouin, because they are Israeli nationals). If the occupying power were Japan, it wouldn't be allowed to transfer Japanese nationals into Palestine - this isn't because international law hates Japanese people, it's because they're specifically prohibited as the occupying power from transferring their nationals into the territory. An occupation is meant to be a short-term state of affairs and the occupying power is not allowed to do a whole range of things that will fundamentally change the character of the occupied territory - e.g. certain kinds of resource use, not allowed to change the laws in force, not allowed to change the demographic composition of the territory, etc.

The point is that Palestine, including the West Bank, was earmarked by the League of Nations to be a land where two peoples would live, Arabs and Jews. Later on, the UN partitioned the land into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Even though that resolution was non binding, parts of the Jewish state were to be on the West Bank. Yet after the war that the Palestinian Arabs and their allies waged against the Palestinian Jews, not a single Jew was left in the West Bank. So you are saying that the rights of the Jews were forfeited because of the war of aggression that the Palestinian Arabs and their allies waged against the Jews? And because of the ethnic cleansing of the Jews? That's all it took to negate the intentions of the League of Nations?

Having said that, the status of the West Bank never got finalized. The boundary between Israel and the West Bank was never recognized by anyone, least of all the Arabs as an international border. It was just an armistice line. The West Bank itself has an indeterminate status to this date. In 1948, the Jordanians attempted to annex it, but virtually no one recognized their attempt and it was deemed as illegal. So, the Jordanians had no authority whatsoever to pass on sovereignty over the West Bank, to the Palestinian Arabs. That is just your attempt to muddy the waters. They had no authority to do so especially since they only did it after they already lost control of the land to Israel who defeated the Jordanian army in a defensive war after Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967.

So, in summary, the status of the West Bank today is that of a contested territory. And it's status will only be finalized after successful negotiations which are currently not proceeding because the "scholars" of your Kangaroo Courts are giving false hopes to the Palestinian Arabs that they will be able to finally achieve what they could not achieve in their wars of aggression against the Jewish people to get rid of Jewish settlements from the West Bank via the rulings of corrupt politicized judges.

[Reffo]

If they have individual property rights, e.g. they can show a right to possession of certain land (e.g. if they hadn't lived there themselves, but their parents had, and the parents had conveyed the rights to the property to their descendants) then certainly they will have a right to live in the land

Fair enough, at least you are being consistent(I think) that's what you seemed to say about the Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank, in 1948, by the Palestinian Arabs and their Jordanian allies.

Now, whether Jordan could repopulate the West Bank with Palestinians who had no historical connection whatever to the territory is less clear (and also a very strange suggestion - since we've just assumed that Israel expelled millions of Palestinians that used to live there - where did they all go?)

It was a thought experiment, remember? But there is nothing strange about it unless your claim is that all Palestinian Arabs lived only in the West Bank and nowhere else.

Arguably it could not do so, since it is an occupying power. However, it could be argued that in view of Palestinians' as of yet unfulfilled right to self-determination, and the fact that Jordan would not be transferring its own population/nationals but rather Palestinian nationals into the territory, it may be permissible. I can't claim to give you an authoritative legal opinion on the matter. But this is a completely different situation to the one that Israel finds itself in, where it is clearly transferring its own population into the occupied territory in clear violation of the rule

The situation is not necessarily different. Under the scenario that I painted, the Jordanians would transfer Palestinian Arabs who never lived in the West Bank and who have no title deeds to any parts of the West Bank. And many Jews too who now live in the West Bank were originally citizens of other countries or dual citizens. Not all but many.

So stop obfuscating and tell us why Israel's right should be lesser than Jordanian rights in the scenario that I gave you.

PS
Your answer in bold is the only consistent bit in your answer. The rest is obfuscation. Given your position about what Israel could or could not do. However, I actually disagree with you. IMHO (and it's not just mine), Israel's settlements are not illegal (except the ones, if any, that have been built on privately owned Arab lands). And by the same token, Jordan would be within it's right to establish Arab settlements, populated by Palestinian Arabs, in the West Bank in the scenario that I painted.

[curlyg]

That is only an opinion. What it isn't it's not a logical argument.

Right. The text which followed it, which for some reason you decided to ignore, was the logical argument supporting my opinion. Is there any reason in particular you decided to do that?

That's right but they both have argued for the same conclusion, using different arguments. Is there anything wrong with that?

Nothing at all - just that they shouldn't be lumped together in the same basket. Their arguments proceed along very different routes, and so one shouldn't expect them to be addressed together by scholars.

And that's a reason to just dismiss their arguments? I mean BOTH professor Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow are prominent on their own right. I listed their credentials earlier on this thread.

I gave you my take on why Rostow's views make very little sense. The fact that you ignored my comments doesn't mean I dismissed his views.

Those opinions are not available elsewhere on the net? Only on subscribed sites? And you have no one who has gone through Rostow's arguments with a list of valid objections? Could it be because they have no valid arguments against Rostow's point of view? Anyway, I will look at the link that you DID provide and will come back with feedback.

Not sure. You could try searching Google Books or Google Scholar, they sometimes give limited free access. However in general books and academic journals are only open to subscribers of academic databases, which I have access to because my university subscribes to them.

Unsuccessfully? That's just another one of your opinions.

Right. An opinion supported by reasons. That's what debate is all about, no? Am I meant to debate without stating my opinion? I don't think that will work.

The point is that Palestine, including the West Bank, was earmarked by the League of Nations to be a land where two peoples would live, Arabs and Jews. Later on, the UN partitioned the land into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Even though that resolution was non binding, parts of the Jewish state were to be on the West Bank. Yet after the war that the Palestinian Arabs and their allies waged against the Palestinian Jews, not a single Jew was left in the West Bank.

I follow so far...

Having said that, the status of the West Bank never got finalized. The boundary between Israel and the West Bank was never recognized by anyone, least of all the Arabs as an international border. It was just an armistice line. The West Bank itself has an indeterminate status to this date. In 1948, the Jordanians attempted to annex it, but virtually no one recognized their attempt and it was deemed as illegal. So, the Jordanians had no authority whatsoever to pass on sovereignty over the West Bank, to the Palestinian Arabs. That is just your attempt to muddy the waters. They had no authority to do so especially since they only did it after they already lost control of the land to Israel who defeated the Jordanian army in a defensive war after Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967.

Let's assume the West Bank's status is unclear, if you like. Fine. That doesn't mean Israel has sovereign title, and it doesn't mean Israel is no longer a belligerent occupant. Its administration of the territory is clearly governed by the law of occupation, as the Israeli Supreme Court recognises. That means that it is bound by article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that it is not permitted to transfer its population into the occupied territory. That's what it comes down to after we put aside the theoretical debates over what entity has the best claim to the West Bank. And your accusing me of trying to "muddy the waters" is entirely unfounded. You are completely selective and hypocritical in your approach to the West Bank. You observe that Jordan had no authority to pass sovereignty because its own sovereignty was not recognised by the international community - so suddenly the opinions of the international community are good and valid to constitute law? What about the fact that the international community regards the West Bank as occupied territory and the Israeli settlements as illegal? In fact, more states recognised Jordan's annexation than states recognising the legality of Israel's settlements at the moment.

I think the most plausible interpretation, which was put forward by Israeli academics in the 1950s and is still supported by Yoram Dinstein, is that the armistice agreements defined Israel's international boundaries. "Recognition" or "non-recognition" is completely irrelevant - to use the legal terminology, recognition is declaratory (i.e. it declares an existing state of affairs - which exists regardless of the recognition), not constitutive (i.e. recognition does not CONSTITUTE the legal reality).

So, in summary, the status of the West Bank today is that of a contested territory. And it's status will only be finalized after successful negotiations which are currently not proceeding because the "scholars" of your Kangaroo Courts are giving false hopes to the Palestinian Arabs that they will be able to finally achieve what they could not achieve in their wars of aggression against the Jewish people to get rid of Jewish settlements from the West Bank via the rulings of corrupt politicized judges.

As per usual, you label everyone who disagree with you - academics and judges from very diverse backgrounds who are openly pro-Israel on many issues - as being corrupt, politicised, unscholarly (that's the implication from you use of quotation marks when referring to "scholars"), etc. You complain about my supposed failure to address your two legal arguments (which I have addressed...) and then entirely fail to address the substance of the quotes from highly reputable legal authorities and resort to attacking their character. Not very persuasive, Reffo.