Government Committee: says 'Israel not occupation force'

[curlyg]

See my post #79.

Your post #79 is entirely one-sided, presenting straw-man arguments then knocking them down. Not all too impressive, especially given we've already discussed much of it. No point repeating it.

You and your scholars seem to pretend that the West bank is holy Arab land under Israeli occupation. It isn't! It is a land that has been earmarked for both Jews and Arabs as was the whole of Palestine. When I say, "earmarked" I mean a division of the land, via negotiated solution, into two states, one Jewish one Arab, was recommended. However, as we both agreed, UN resolution 181 was non binding.

It is occupied land within the meaning of the fourth Geneva Convention. If you have a problem with that take it up with the Supreme Court of Israel, which agrees with that classification, as well as the vast majority of competent international law NGOs like the ICRC, virtually every state in the world, the ICJ, the vast majority of eminent international law scholars, etc. Even if we accept your basic premise that the final disposition of the land is subject to a negotiated settlement, this doesn't change Israel's CURRENT status as an occupant. You're the one repeating a mantra when the weight of legal authority is quite clearly overwhelmingly against you.

Since the beginning of this conflict, Israel was ready to negotiate a solution to divide the land on a mutually agreeable basis. Even though a Jewish state now exists in part of historic Palestine, for whatever reason, the way I see it due to Arab intransigence, you probably don't agree, but let's agree to disagree, for whatever reason, the status of the land has not been finalized. Till relatively recently, even the status of Israel has not been finalized according to the Arabs. Many Arabs still don't accept the right of Israel to exist. So we have two groups of people, the Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs still vying for the same piece of land or at least parts of it. Both groups belong on this disputed land so neither can be deemed as occupiers.

That's a philosophical view, not a legal one. Occupation is a legal status - and Israel's presence in the West Bank satisfies the legal requirements of that status.

But you and your scholars put the cart before the horse and claim that since Jewish self determination has been achieved, now it is the turn of the Palestinian Arabs to get self determination. While I won't argue for or against that, let me remind you that such an argument is not necessarily part of the legal framework. The reality is that legally speaking, they don't necessarily have to end up having self determination. As Dayag said, there are many people on this earth who don't have self determination. I'll say it again, I am not arguing AGAINST their self determination (or for it), it's just that legally speaking it isn't imperative. You yourself admitted that the UN resolution 181 was non binding.

No, this is definitely not true. To be clear, self-determination IS a legal principle. In fact, if you take a look at the ICJ decision in Western Sahara and Namibia, you'll see it's actually considered a critical legal principle, especially in former mandate territories. It is regarded as a rule of jus cogens, which is a kind of fundamental law that trumps all other inconsistent rules of international law. The problem is not whether they have a right to self-determination - they clearly do - the question is what that means in practice. How does that right operate? What does it practically mean in any given set of circumstances? This is why the situation is unclear in your 'thought experiment'.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with Israel administering the West Bank, not as an occupier, as your so called scholars claim and with whom my scholars vehemently disagree, but as the representative of one of the entities, the Jews, who have the right to be there. As for the settlements, they don't take up the whole of the West Bank, not by a long shot. So they don't even prejudice the possibility of a Palestinian Arab state.

I guess readers will have to make up their own minds. All I can do is point out yet again that, as against your rather limited group of scholars, there is an overwhelming weight of authority - both international and Israeli - that consider the territories to be occupied. One has to really bend over backward to ignore all these legal precedents and opinions to reach the conclusion you have, and it doesn't appear to me that this can be done in good faith.

[curlyg]

So according to you, a situation could conceivably arise, at least theoretically, whereby everybody, Jew or Arab could end up being classified as illegal settlers. Think about it ...

I think that from a legal point of view, they ARE entirely identical.

This is entirely irrelevant from a legal point of view. Unless you think that ALL claims of self determination give the claimants special privileges.

The scenario that I gave you said that we are talking about Palestinians who became Jordanian citizens, remember?

It seems that according to you, the answer has to be a YES. I disagreed, remember? I ( not just I but many scholars too) disagree for the same reason why I disagree with the idea that Jews are illegal settlers in the West Bank.

What can I say? I gave you a scenario in which I said that we are talking of Jordan settling Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank who have no title deeds to lands in the West Bank but who were granted Jordanian citizenship. But you proceed to give me an analysis not related to that. Oh well ...

Yet you seem to be certain about the case of the Jews. The least you could be is consistent. And before you launch into your "stateless people" mantra again, remember, the scenario that I painted for you involved Palestinian Arabs who HAVE Jordanian citizenship.

Sure is. I am glad you admit it.

No I don't. I gave you a scenario and you came back with your own straw man scenario.

What can I say other than repeat myself? I won't repeat myself but I will say that you seem to be habitually harder on the Jews and Israel than on the Arabs. There are many like you. I don't know why. Only you know why. Maybe you are just a devil's advocate? I'd like to think so.

Ok, well if you don't want me to consider anything other than STRICTLY the facts of your scenario, then I am inclined to say they are all illegal settlers. But let me be clear that it is only in your thought experiment that everyone can be classed as illegal settlers - because your scenario has reduced the problem to absurdity. If we're talking about ONLY Palestinians with Jordanian citizenship being transferred, which is a very specific sub-group of the population, then this would be illegal - but this would not happen in reality. The Palestinians who were expelled and their descendants who inherited the property would be entitled to return.

[curlyg]

The Palestinians are not yet a sovereign nation. They do not have a legal right to control immigration. And the idea that Jews do not have a right to live in Judea and Samaria is RACIST! The idea that you cannot have Jews in a Palestinian state is APARTHEID and RACIST as well.

Israeli Arabs can't live in the West Bank either. Nor can Israel's Black Hebrew community. This isn't because they're black or Arab, or Jewish for that matter, it's because they're part of the population of an occupying power which can't be transferred into occupied territory.

[curlyg]

But before I go on with the thought experiment, I can't let this response of yours unanswered ...

And that document of the League of Nations is not legal enough for your liking? Ok then, two can play that game. Show me a legal document that gives the West Bank to Arabs and Arabs only. And I don't mean a recently fabricated one by a politicized UN instrumentality. I mean a historical document going back as far as the League of nations. At least as far back as the documents that I presented to you which affirmed the rights of Jews in Palestine.

I have already, and like you, I'm not fond of repeating myself. On the allegation that this is Arab only land, see my post above and also the very beginning of our discussion. On why Israelis can't settle there, take a look at article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention - which is an international treaty still in force, unlike the mandate instrument...

[Reffo]

Your post #79 is entirely one-sided, presenting straw-man arguments then knocking them down. Not all too impressive, especially given we've already discussed much of it. No point repeating it

Really? In other words, your contention is that your "scholars" are better than my scholars? Funny, I think about it exactly the other way around. And I won't repeat myself either.

It is occupied land within the meaning of the fourth Geneva Convention

Why? Because your "scholars" say so? I don't accept their point of view because I am persuaded by other scholars who disagree with them and by my own understanding of the history of this whole affair.

If you have a problem with that take it up with the Supreme Court of Israel, which agrees with that classification, as well as the vast majority of competent international law NGOs like the ICRC, virtually every state in the world, the ICJ, the vast majority of eminent international law scholars, etc.

That's your argument? The majority argument? I guess you would have agreed with the majority of "scholars" a couple of hundred years ago who believed that slave ownership was perfectly legal and respectable because, like your "scholars" who arbitrarily apply the term OCCUPATION or OCCUPIER against Israel, those old scholars labelled black Africans as somehow less human.

Even if we accept your basic premise that the final disposition of the land is subject to a negotiated settlement, this doesn't change Israel's CURRENT status as an occupant. You're the one repeating a mantra when the weight of legal authority is quite clearly overwhelmingly against you.

Describing Israel as an OCCUPIER is precisely our point of disagreement. And so long as you continue to maintain your mantra on this forum, I will continue mine. And not just continue it, but I'll present reasons, references and will attempt to demonstrate the ridiculous implications that arise out of the conclusions of your "scholars". Keep reading what I have to say below, if you want to that is. But it's ok with me if you don't want to either, it's all the same to me.

[Reffo]

Since the beginning of this conflict, Israel was ready to negotiate a solution to divide the land on a mutually agreeable basis. Even though a Jewish state now exists in part of historic Palestine, for whatever reason, the way I see it due to Arab intransigence, you probably don't agree, but let's agree to disagree, for whatever reason, the status of the land has not been finalized. Till relatively recently, even the status of Israel has not been finalized according to the Arabs. Many Arabs still don't accept the right of Israel to exist. So we have two groups of people, the Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs still vying for the same piece of land or at least parts of it. Both groups belong on this disputed land so neither can be deemed as occupiers.

That's a philosophical view, not a legal one. Occupation is a legal status - and Israel's presence in the West Bank satisfies the legal requirements of that status

That's it? I give you a whole paragraph explaining to you why Israel cannot be considered as an occupier in the same way as say Russia occupied many countries in the old Soviet Union and still occupy the Sakhalin Islands of Japan. Because unlike Israel, they have a military presence in lands that others (Japan for example) have legal title to. But Israel is on lands that NO ONE has legal title to but Israel is ONE of the parties that has a legal claim to. But you just ignore the difference and repeat your (and your "scholars") mantra that Israel is an occupier. And you think that repetition proves that you are right? Well then you are in good company. All propagandists subscribe to your idea of "proof".

But you and your scholars put the cart before the horse and claim that since Jewish self determination has been achieved, now it is the turn of the Palestinian Arabs to get self determination. While I won't argue for or against that, let me remind you that such an argument is not necessarily part of the legal framework. The reality is that legally speaking, they don't necessarily have to end up having self determination. As Dayag said, there are many people on this earth who don't have self determination. I'll say it again, I am not arguing AGAINST their self determination (or for it), it's just that legally speaking it isn't imperative. You yourself admitted that the UN resolution 181 was non binding.

No, this is definitely not true. To be clear, self-determination IS a legal principle. In fact, if you take a look at the ICJ decision in Western Sahara and Namibia, you'll see it's actually considered a critical legal principle, especially in former mandate territories. It is regarded as a rule of jus cogens, which is a kind of fundamental law that trumps all other inconsistent rules of international law. The problem is not whether they have a right to self-determination - they clearly do - the question is what that means in practice. How does that right operate? What does it practically mean in any given set of circumstances? This is why the situation is unclear in your 'thought experiment'

Even if I accept this example of yours and that it applies to the West Bank, tell me this: How does it translate to the implication that the entire West Bank has to end up as ethnically pure Arab lands with NO Jewish settlements?

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with Israel administering the West Bank, not as an occupier, as your so called scholars claim and with whom my scholars vehemently disagree, but as the representative of one of the entities, the Jews, who have the right to be there. As for the settlements, they don't take up the whole of the West Bank, not by a long shot. So they don't even prejudice the possibility of a Palestinian Arab state.

I guess readers will have to make up their own minds. All I can do is point out yet again that, as against your rather limited group of scholars, there is an overwhelming weight of authority - both international and Israeli - that consider the territories to be occupied. One has to really bend over backward to ignore all these legal precedents and opinions to reach the conclusion you have, and it doesn't appear to me that this can be done in good faith

More repetition, more propaganda, more claims that your scholars are better and more numerous than my scholars. But unlike you I prefer to think issues through for myself rather than just accept what is fed to me. In the same way that if I lived 200 years ago, I would not have accepted the words of the numerous scholars and authorities who soothingly were assuring everyone that slave ownership is a divine right. Fortunately, the likes of me who challenged conventional wisdom prevailed in the long term. And the same will happen with our debate about the West Bank because the truth will always win out at the end as long as there are some people who are prepared to stand up and argue for it.

[Reffo]

Ok, well if you don't want me to consider anything other than STRICTLY the facts of your scenario, then I am inclined to say they are all illegal settlers. But let me be clear that it is only in your thought experiment that everyone can be classed as illegal settlers - because your scenario has reduced the problem to absurdity. If we're talking about ONLY Palestinians with Jordanian citizenship being transferred, which is a very specific sub-group of the population, then this would be illegal - but this would not happen in reality. The Palestinians who were expelled and their descendants who inherited the property would be entitled to return

Yes, they are my thought experiment but it has implications. Even practical implications that could become reality in some circumstances. In my previous post, I asked you to think about those implications. But did you? Of course you did NOT. What do they teach you youngsters in universities these days? In my days, when I went to university, they encouraged us to think for ourselves and to question everything and everyone. They told us to do our own research and to come to our own conclusions after thinking about every angle of an issue very carefully.

So let me do some thinking for you curlyg. Consider this:

What if a future extremist Israeli government would ethnically cleanse the West Bank of it's Arab population, in the same way that the Palestinian Arabs and their Jordanian allies ethnically cleansed the West Bank of Jews (I hope it never happens, by the way).

Take it a step further. What if after some diplomatic pressure or for any other reason, the Arab countries would grant citizenship to all the Palestinian Arabs in their countries. It is not an entirely inconceivable scenario. After all, Israel granted citizenship to an equivalent number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries (yes, the 700,000 to 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries have descendants too who number in the millions today).

Let's say that subsequently Jordan or a coalition of Arab countries would get control of parts of the West Bank (mainly the crown lands) through armed conflict (again, I hope that will NEVER happen). Let's say that they would then transfer part or all of the Palestinian Arabs, who by then would be citizens of other Arab countries, into the West Bank.

So according to you and your scholars, everyone in the West Bank, Arab or Jew (assuming Israel retains part of the West Bank) would ALL be ILLEGAL SETTLERS, huh curlyg? Don't you think that's ludicrous? No, I guess you don't. Ummmm, OK then ...

[curlyg]

Yes, they are my thought experiment but it has implications. Even practical implications that could become reality in some circumstances. In my previous post, I asked you to think about those implications. But did you? Of course you did NOT. What do they teach you youngsters in universities these days? In my days, when I went to university, they encouraged us to think for ourselves and to question everything and everyone. They told us to do our own research and to come to our own conclusions after thinking about every angle of an issue very carefully.

So let me do some thinking for you curlyg. Consider this:

What if a future extremist Israeli government would ethnically cleanse the West Bank of it's Arab population, in the same way that the Palestinian Arabs and their Jordanian allies ethnically cleansed the West Bank of Jews (I hope it never happens, by the way).

Take it a step further. What if after some diplomatic pressure or for any other reason, the Arab countries would grant citizenship to all the Palestinian Arabs in their countries. It is not an entirely inconceivable scenario. After all, Israel granted citizenship to an equivalent number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries (yes, the 700,000 to 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries have descendants too who number in the millions today).

Let's say that subsequently Jordan or a coalition of Arab countries would get control of parts of the West Bank (mainly the crown lands) through armed conflict (again, I hope that will NEVER happen). Let's say that they would then transfer part or all of the Palestinian Arabs, who by then would be citizens of other Arab countries, into the West Bank.

So according to you and your scholars, everyone in the West Bank, Arab or Jew (assuming Israel retains part of the West Bank) would ALL be ILLEGAL SETTLERS, huh curlyg? Don't you think that's ludicrous? No, I guess you don't. Ummmm, OK then ...

Reffo, I'm going to have to repeat and ask you to drop the personal attacks and apologise. If your response to having your views challenged is to much label me and every leading international law scholar on earth who agrees with me stupid, unable to think, etc. then as far as I'm concerned this discussion is over. Throughout this debate whenever I've pointed out gaping holes in your reasoning your response has been to ignore my posts, insult me personally, or else label the world's leading scholars as "scholars" (i.e. as unscholarly and unreliable). I'm fairly sure an objective observer of this thread will be able to draw their own conclusions. I think a little moderator intervention might be in order here.

Now the scenario you've presented in this post has very little in common with your so-called 'thought experiment'. In the thought experiment, the Palestinians with Jordanian citizenship who were being transferred had no individual right to be in the West Bank, and so they would be illegal settlers. In the scenario you've gone through in this post, the Palestinians are expelled then granted citizenship in Arab countries. However, they can still have their individual property rights enforced, which were violated by the original expulsion, so that they are able to return. They would not be settlers. Likewise, Jews expelled from Arab lands had their individual human rights violated, for which they are entitled to redress (return of the property or compensation).

Like I said, your thought experiment is impossible in practice, it illustrates a theoretical point regarding who is a settler. Perhaps you are the one who should give some careful thought to the different implications resulting from the different fact scenarios you present.

[curlyg]

That's it? I give you a whole paragraph explaining to you why Israel cannot be considered as an occupier in the same way as say Russia occupied many countries in the old Soviet Union and still occupy the Sakhalin Islands of Japan. Because unlike Israel, they have a military presence in lands that others (Japan for example) have legal title to. But Israel is on lands that NO ONE has legal title to but Israel is ONE of the parties that has a legal claim to. But you just ignore the difference and repeat your (and your "scholars") mantra that Israel is an occupier. And you think that repetition proves that you are right? Well then you are in good company. All propagandists subscribe to your idea of "proof".

Can you show me where in the Geneva Conventions it states that there is no occupation unless you can show that someone else has title? This is contrary to the whole point of the convention which is to provide maximum protection to civilians who find themselves under the control of a foreign army in times of war.

Even if I accept this example of yours and that it applies to the West Bank, tell me this: How does it translate to the implication that the entire West Bank has to end up as ethnically pure Arab lands with NO Jewish settlements?

Already addressed. Repeatedly.

More repetition, more propaganda, more claims that your scholars are better and more numerous than my scholars. But unlike you I prefer to think issues through for myself rather than just accept what is fed to me. In the same way that if I lived 200 years ago, I would not have accepted the words of the numerous scholars and authorities who soothingly were assuring everyone that slave ownership is a divine right. Fortunately, the likes of me who challenged conventional wisdom prevailed in the long term. And the same will happen with our debate about the West Bank because the truth will always win out at the end as long as there are some people who are prepared to stand up and argue for it.

If you insist on dragging this into an ethical as opposed to legal debate, that's fine. We can debate the merits of the settlements if that is something you care deeply for. You were the one who insisted at the outset that we stick to the legalities.

[Reffo]

Reffo, I'm going to have to repeat and ask you to drop the personal attacks and apologise. If your response to having your views challenged is to much label me and every leading international law scholar on earth who agrees with me stupid, unable to think, etc. then as far as I'm concerned this discussion is over. Throughout this debate whenever I've pointed out gaping holes in your reasoning your response has been to ignore my posts, insult me personally, or else label the world's leading scholars as "scholars" (i.e. as unscholarly and unreliable). I'm fairly sure an objective observer of this thread will be able to draw their own conclusions. I think a little moderator intervention might be in order here

The fact is that my attitude to you and the scholars whom you quoted was no different than your attitude to me and the scholars whom I quoted. If you want, I can give you examples but I would rather continue with the debate.

However, this is my offer to you: quit denigrating and belittling the scholars whom I quote. And I will do likewise. I remind you again, you were the one who started this whole approach when you commented on Levy. Look back at the beginning of this thread.

Now the scenario you've presented in this post has very little in common with your so-called 'thought experiment'. In the thought experiment, the Palestinians with Jordanian citizenship who were being transferred had no individual right to be in the West Bank, and so they would be illegal settlers. In the scenario you've gone through in this post, the Palestinians are expelled then granted citizenship in Arab countries. However, they can still have their individual property rights enforced, which were violated by the original expulsion, so that they are able to return. They would not be settlers. Likewise, Jews expelled from Arab lands had their individual human rights violated, for which they are entitled to redress (return of the property or compensation)

Whatever. I won't even argue that point with you, even though I should. It doesn't matter. Treat it on it's own merit then.

And no, they would not have their individual property rights if their occupation would occur only on crown lands, which was my scenario. Or are you saying that such a scenario is an impossibility? Or maybe you are saying that Palestinian Arabs who have other Arab citizenship, would have greater rights to crown lands than Jews in a similar situation?

Like I said, your thought experiment is impossible in practice, it illustrates a theoretical point regarding who is a settler

Again you are just asserting things. The fact is that my scenario is not all that much different to what happened to the Jews.

[curlyg]

The fact is that my attitude to you and the scholars whom you quoted was no different than your attitude to me and the scholars whom I quoted. If you want, I can give you examples but I would rather continue with the debate.

No, it's really not. I haven't attacked the character of the people you are citing, nor have I disputed their honesty or scholarship. I consider Julius Stone to be among the leading international law scholars of the past century, and I've said as much. It just so happens that they weight of authority does not accord with his views on this issue. You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to try label anyone who disagrees with you dishonest, a propagandist (even drawing Nazi analogies, which I decided to ignore despite them being completely out of place), accused them of being unable to think, and all but called them idiots (perhaps not in so many words...) You've treated me in exactly the same way.

I've criticised Rostow's arguments because I disagree with them and, as far as I can tell, they're inconsistent with some very basic principles of international law. I haven't attacked his character or anything of the sort.

I think you should take a closer look at how you've been coming through in this 'debate.'

However, this is my offer to you: quit denigrating and belittling the scholars whom I quote. And I will do likewise. I remind you again, you were the one who started this whole approach when you commented on Levy. Look back at the beginning of this thread

Did I denigrate Levy? I said that Netanyahu appointed a person whose views were known in advance, who represents a minority in the Israeli and international legal community when it comes to their legal assessment of the territories, because he wanted to manufacture a specific outcome. Which part of this is not true?

Whatever. I won't even argue that point with you, even though I should. It doesn't matter. Treat it on it's own merit then.

Case in point. Don't just try to get out of it after insulting me for supposedly failing to think things through - either admit you screwed up and that your example isn't comparable to your thought experiment, or argue your point.

Again you are just asserting things. The fact is that my scenario is not all that much different to what happened to the Jews.

I'm asserting things, accompanied by argument. We've been over this - that's what a debate looks like. If you want me to stop asserting things, we can stop debating.

[JerichoMissile]

The Palestinians are not yet a sovereign nation. They do not have a legal right to control immigration. And the idea that Jews do not have a right to live in Judea and Samaria is RACIST! The idea that you cannot have Jews in a Palestinian state is APARTHEID and RACIST as well.

i agree, but look at the reality of world opinion, look at the horredous bias the world has.

Everyone expects israel to take care of, be very nice to the palestinian citizens of israel, yet the world believes (wrongly of course)
that this whole conflict is about jews living in the WB, settlers, i know its sickening, but 99.5% of the world believes this is the core of the conflict,
we here know its not, but its amazing, people think millions of palestinians are allowed to live in israel, but no jews should be allowed to live in their
own communities in the WB, thats sick.

but this is the way the world sees the conflict.

[Reffo]

Whatever. I won't even argue that point with you, even though I should. It doesn't matter. Treat it on it's own merit then.

Case in point. Don't just try to get out of it after insulting me for supposedly failing to think things through - either admit you screwed up and that your example isn't comparable to your thought experiment, or argue your point

I have to respond to this post of you first because IT IS a case in point. You have conveniently ommitted this bit ofwhat I said in the same post:

And no, they would not have their individual property rights if their occupation would occur only on crown lands, which was my scenario. Or are you saying that such a scenario is an impossibility? Or maybe you are saying that Palestinian Arabs who have other Arab citizenship, would have greater rights to crown lands than Jews in a similar situation?

Now I grant you this possibility. It is possible that you responded to my post while I was still editing mine and therefore you missed this bit. So, here is a suggestion for you: Please wait a bit before you respond so that we will be able to avoid misunderstandings. I'll do likewise and wait a bit before responding to your posts. From now on ...

[Reffo]

Can you show me where in the Geneva Conventions it states that there is no occupation unless you can show that someone else has title? This is contrary to the whole point of the convention which is to provide maximum protection to civilians who find themselves under the control of a foreign army in times of war

Can you show me how a country can be considered to be an occupier of lands to which it has a right of claim? Firstly because of international agreements that were agreed upon by the League of Nations back in the 1920s. And secondly because some of it's citizens who had title deeds to some of the lands from which they were illegally expelled.

Can you also explain to me how a land can be occupied if it has no high contracting party with a legal claim to it, like the West Bank?

Even if I accept this example of yours and that it applies to the West Bank, tell me this: How does it translate to the implication that the entire West Bank has to end up as ethnically pure Arab lands with NO Jewish settlements?

Already addressed. Repeatedly

Not really. This discussion is about settlements. You implied that those settlements somehow impact on the self determination of Palestinian Arabs. You never explained how.

I mentioned to you in an earlier post that theoretically at least, the "settlements" could end up as part of a Palestinian Arab state. The same way that Israel has Arab citizens. Alternatively, the settlements could end up as part of Israel via a legitimately negotiated deal. Either way, the viability of an independent Palestinian Arab state would not be jeopardized. Moreover, the whole process would be in line with legal documents such as the 1949 armistice agreements and binding UN security council Resolution 242. You never responded to that post of mine.

If you insist on dragging this into an ethical as opposed to legal debate, that's fine. We can debate the merits of the settlements if that is something you care deeply for. You were the one who insisted at the outset that we stick to the legalities

Yes, I challenged the assertion of those who claim that the settlements are illegal. I still do. And as I mentioned in an earlier post of mine, no American president has come out and asserted that the "settlements" are illegal. Even though all of them were pressing Israel to stop settlement activity (for political reasons). Even President Carter admitted that Israel would retain settlements like Gush Etzion. Would he say that if he would consider such settlements illegal?

I gave you a quote and a link to verify what I said. Did you respond to that? No!

[Reffo]

No, it's really not. I haven't attacked the character of the people you are citing, nor have I disputed their honesty or scholarship. I consider Julius Stone to be among the leading international law scholars of the past century, and I've said as much.

Yes and you just dismissed the rest of them off handedly. I quoted quite a few scholars in my post #79, you just refused to even discussed what they said and you questioned their credibility.

It just so happens that they weight of authority does not accord with his views on this issue

Oh please, not again. I have already addressed this point of yours.

You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to try label anyone who disagrees with you dishonest,

I called them politicized and I stand by that. And you questioned my personal motives on this thread. That wasn't personal?

a propagandist (even drawing Nazi analogies, which I decided to ignore despite them being completely out of place),

Actually, I didn't (to the best of my knowledge). However, I quoted Professor Stone in my post #79, who did.

accused them of being unable to think, and all but called them idiots (perhaps not in so many words...) You've treated me in exactly the same way

Where? when I used the same word that you used to describe Eugene Rostow's arguments? The word "bizarre"? And when you used the following sentence to describe my scenario: "because your scenario has reduced the problem to absurdity". That is not treating me as if I am an idiot?

I've criticised Rostow's arguments because I disagree with them and, as far as I can tell, they're inconsistent with some very basic principles of international law. I haven't attacked his character or anything of the sort

Let's face it, we have BOTH used robust language to describe the arguments of opposing points of view. You used belittling words like "bizarre" and other dismissive words. I offered to stop if you stop. The offer still stands.

I think you should take a closer look at how you've been coming through in this 'debate.'

And I think that you should too.

Did I denigrate Levy? I said that Netanyahu appointed a person whose views were known in advance, who represents a minority in the Israeli and international legal community when it comes to their legal assessment of the territories, because he wanted to manufacture a specific outcome. Which part of this is not true?

No? Then read your own post which I quote below ...

What a farce. Appoint a panel headed by Edmond Levy, whose position was already known in advance, and what do you expect? Forget the fact that if you had appointed virtually any other former Israeli Supreme Court judge they would have come to the opposite conclusion...

Pretty robust language if I must say so myself.

I'm asserting things, accompanied by argument. We've been over this - that's what a debate looks like. If you want me to stop asserting things, we can stop debating

Please yourself. But rest assured that I am here on this forum to refute the arguments of those whom I consider to be unfair to Israel, be it you or anyone else. That's what debate is all about.