Government Committee: says 'Israel not occupation force'

[Reffo]

I think I addressed this point under my very brief discussion of the 'right of return'

Did you? Then perhaps you could point out what was your response to the following question that I asked you in my post #143?

But I ask you, what is the difference between Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin and Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin? After all, Israeli Arabs and many Jews too lived in Palestine before Israel became a separate sovereign state. And you must know too that Jordan itself too was legally part of Palestine prior to 1929. It was known as Eastern Palestine before the British tore it off the rest of Palestine and handed it to the Hashemite Arabs

Why do you feel that Jordanian citizens of Palestinian extraction have greater rights to return than Israeli citizens of Palestinian extraction? Have they got protekcia from above?

[Reffo]

Two points: firstly, I still don't accept, as you say, that Jews are granted an unlimited positive right to settle anywhere in Palestine under international law. I think that international law was silent on the matter, and what it does not prohibit is permitted. But once the occupation began, some conduct which previously was not prohibited now became prohibited. Secondly, it's self-evident that the law of occupation was not intended to displace international human rights law. It can't be that because a foreign state has taken over your country's territory, your human rights guaranteed under international treaties are now void

Really? Then let me present to you for the third time, the quote that I first presented in my post #66 (which included a link to the full terms of the League of Nations Trust):

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

You seem determined to play the role of the three wise monkeys: see nothing, hear nothing and ....

[Reffo]

The same is true of the territories. Of course they are disputed, and of course negotiations will take place. But beneath the dispute, at law, one of the claimants has a better right to the territory. That is what we have been discussing as regards occupation vs sovereignty

To say that the Palestinian Arabs have a better right to the lands that the Israeli "settlements" are on, is just an assertion. As for the rest of the West Bank? Perhaps, some would even debate that, but we are not talking about the rest of the West Bank. We are talking about parts of East Jerusalem, we are talking about places like Gush Etzion, places where up to 500,000 Jews live. The Arabs certainly don't have better rights to those places than the Jews who live there today and where they lived before, before 1948 too for several generations.

[Reffo]

It's hardly as strange as you are making it seem. Consider an example: right now, there is nothing under international law that prohibits Chinese people from living in the United States. All a Chinese person need do is comply with American immigration law, and they can freely live in that country. Now suppose that for some reason, the United States launches a military strike against China on the basis of some mistaken intelligence, and China by some accident of circumstance manages to defeat and occupy the United States. China has acquired the territory of the United States by a purely defensive war against an act of aggression through no fault of its own. Now, previously international law did not prohibit Chinese from settling in the US, whereas now they are prohibited. Why? Because China is in a position of power which it did not have before, and it may take advantage of that new position to alter the fundamental character of the US to its own advantage, for example, by settling large numbers of Chinese citizens in certain parts of the territory to shore up its control of them for the long-term future. The fact that China came into possession of the territory by a purely innocent and defensive war is irrelevant when it comes to the application of the law of occupation. They are abusing their position as an occupying power to effect changes to the territory which are inconsistent with their new status. It is unfortunate for Chinese who previously had a right to settle in the US as they pleased, but for so long as their country remains an occupying power, they can't continue as though nothing has changed

This analogy illustrates your blind spot perfectly because it breaks down on several fronts:

FIRST: China and the USA both have clearly recognized borders. There are no clearly recognized borders between the state of Israel and "Palestine" (in this context, by Palestine, I mean Palestinian Arab state because that's what they said they want to call themselves when they would come into existence).

SECOND: There never was a sovereign Palestinian Arab state. So it cannot be under occupation (logic 101).

THIRD: Even if you choose to pretend that a Palestinian Arab state existed in the West Bank, which it didn't, even then Israel is not laying claim to the entire West Bank. It lays claim only to the lands that the settlements are on.

FOURTH: Historically, several of the West Bank settlements were populated entirely by Jews. In 1948, those Jews were ethnically cleansed by Arabs. So after Israel got attacked by the Arabs in 1967 and won those territories back, it had the right to restore the previous status.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST:Unlike the case of the Jews to whom the League of Nations gave a clear and specific right to make their homeland in Palestine, I am not aware of a similar right given by international law for the Chinese to create their homeland in the USA.

For the above reasons and more, your example is way off the Mark.


PS
This is not part of my response but I cannot help making the following cynical observation: If ever the situation that you describe between the USA and China would occur, the least that the American people would need to worry about would be being occupied and settled by Chinese people. I'll say no more ...

[Reffo]

Here is in excellent blog that summarizes many of the arguments on this thread and offers more ...

The post-modern international law approach

[Reffo]

Here is in excellent blog that summarizes many of the arguments on this thread and offers more ...

The post-modern international law approach

I like this particular interchange ...

But the “change of circumstances” goes more deeply, to the core legal values at stake. The Mandate system, based on the racially paternalist, if not simply racist, notion of “peoples not yet ready to stand up under the strenuous conditions of the modern world,” cannot be used today to deem the wishes of a population to be of no legal weight. On the contrary, current international law requires that, to the extent that the Mandate system continues to be relevant to a particular territory, it must be reinterpreted to dictate the implementation of self-determination for the population...It is the Levy Commission’s seeming ignorance of such decisive legal developments which enables it to have recourse to such dusty artifacts of imperial history as the San Remo Resolution

When it comes to the creation of Israel, he invokes the imagery of racism.

Let's sort this out. The Mandate system of the League of Nations provided for the 'local population' by establishing countries, actually, mandates for them, in Syria and Lebanon and in Mesopotamia, i.e., Iraq, with full cognizance that other Arabs countries already existed, as well. In doing so, the demand for self-determination was accomplished. How many more Arab countries should have been created?

I like it because it highlights the type of double standard that prevails amongst too many scholars today. even one Jewish state is one too many for some of them (I am not necessarily accusing curlyg of that). Yet even curlyg exhibits double standards. In the case of Jordanian citizens of Palestinian Arab background he he invokes their right "to return" to the West Bank even if they never lived on the crown lands that Jordan would be deemed to be an occupier of. But he does not seem to believe that Israeli Arabs (I won't even mention Jews) of Palestinian background, have the same right to return to lands that Israel is deemed to "occupy". They both seem to want to mete out different treatment to Israeli citizens. They are prepared to ditch the principle of equality before the law, purely because they support prevailing political ideological trends unconditionally.

And it seems that the good professor too resorts to curlyg's earlier argument ....

...in the first place, from the fact that its international legal arguments have virtually no support within the discipline, beyond the narrow circles of former or present Israeli government officials and a handful of non-Israeli Jews associated with staunchly right-wing views on Israel. It would not be an exaggeration to say that at least 90% of international lawyers – including the International Court of Justice – firmly reject the position that the report announces as representing the “point of view of international law.” Of course, one can argue that the overwhelming majority of international lawyers are wrong, either legally or morally or both

To which our blogger responds with ...

Remember the "silly proof" of his argumentation line? If one million flies alight on a piece of rotting meat, does that mean it's a good thing, for humans that is?

A bit like what I said about the support for the slave trade by the majority of "good scholars" at one time ...

[Reffo]

It is worth asking: Why are so many people willing to subscribe to the myth that "the settlements" are illegal? The answer is that some do it out of malice while others think that they further the cause of peace. But they all have one thing in common. They are all trying to unscramble an egg. an egg that the Arabs broke and thoroughly scrambled up when they embarked on hostilities against the Jews in order to prevent them to achieve self determination. A goal that they stubbornly pursued to this date. I have news to all those people, the ones who mean well, as well as to the malicious ones: It cannot be done. You can't unscramble an egg and turn it back to a new born egg. You can only deal with the consequences in a pragmatic practical way.

[curlyg]

I assume you call Israel the main beneficiary. If you do then we agree about that too. But where our views start to diverge, is the item in bold.

If Israel attained statehood decades ago, then you might be able to define Israel's borders for me? I bet you can't. The most that you would be able to point to are the 1949 armistice lines. But armistice lines are NOT recognized borders are they?

I can't believe what I'm reading. Are you actually going to try to dispute that Israel attained independent statehood decades ago? I can define Israel's boundaries for you - they are the armistice lines. The fact that these are not the "recognised borders" is irrelevant. Recognition is declaratory, it has no legal value.

In fact, every international document that refers to Palestine/Israel, talks about the need to negotiate, define and agree on SECURE and RECOGNIZED borders. The 1949 armistice agreement talks about it, UN Security Council Resolution 242 talks about it, The Road Map talks about it. Yet although there were numerous attempts to resolve this issue, they all failed. There are no recognized borders. Just because Britain, the trustee has threw up it's arms in the air, declared it all too hard and walked away from the trusteeship (it's mandate), it does NOT mean that the will of the League of Nations was discharged.

The fact that international resolutions call for boundaries to be negotiated does not mean that there are no existing legal boundaries under international law. One is a pragmatic political statement: you will need to negotiate boundaries; the other is a legal statement: this state has title to this territory at the present time.

I am sorry that you can't see that simple logic curlyg, I'll say it again, you seem to have a blind spot about it.

I can say the same for you I guess.

And I think it stems from the fact that you are desperate to see that the Palestinian Arabs should get their piece of "the cake" too. You seem to think that "the settlements" will prevent them from getting it. But nothing is further from the truth. The Palestinians could have their state, Israel could keep most of their "settlements" and the League of Nations trust will only terminate when full agreements will be reached between the parties, culminating in a signed peace deal which will define the borders of the Jewish and Arab states. Ony then will the trust of the League of Nations be discharged and the lands will cease to be disputed lands.

No, curlyg, you really have got this wrong. Since the resolution of the League of Nations never got fully implemented, it obviously could not possibly have been discharged.

Going back to your "Trust" example: until the will of the trust gets fully executed, not just partially, the trust is not deemed to be discharged. Even if the trustee (the 'A' party) walks away from his/her/it's responsibilities.

The problem is not just that the trustee has walked away, it is that the legal arrangement itself has ceased to exist. The mandate is gone. The trust is gone. I don't see how that is even capable of being disputed. No court of law, in Israel or elsewhere, has considered the mandate instrument as a source of rights or obligations for either side of this dispute, in any legal matter that has arisen since the British departed.

In fact, virtually every UN organ has since passed resolutions which are incompatible with your interpretation of the mandate instrument. Given that with the departure of Britain the mandate reverted to the control of the UN even on your interpretation, that should tell you plenty about its current status.

[curlyg]

Why do you feel that Jordanian citizens of Palestinian extraction have greater rights to return than Israeli citizens of Palestinian extraction? Have they got protekcia from above?

I don't want to repeat myself another 10 times. I think I already addressed this point repeatedly, and I'll direct you to my previous comments on the matter if you're interested in my opinion.

FIRST: China and the USA both have clearly recognized borders. There are no clearly recognized borders between the state of Israel and "Palestine" (in this context, by Palestine, I mean Palestinian Arab state because that's what they said they want to call themselves when they would come into existence).

There's no need for a recognised border. That's something you've just conjured up. The question is whether Israel came into possession of territory to which someone else had better title in the course of war, and has placed it under the effective control of its army. The answer is yes. Therefore the territory is occupied. That's where the story ends. The rest about "Palestine", "Palestinians" and "recognized borders" is not part of the legal framework, the fact that you'd like it to be doesn't change what the law actually is.

SECOND: There never was a sovereign Palestinian Arab state. So it cannot be under occupation (logic 101).

Logic fail. There's no requirement for there to have been a Palestinian Arab state. "States" aren't occupied, TERRITORIES are occupied.

THIRD: Even if you choose to pretend that a Palestinian Arab state existed in the West Bank, which it didn't, even then Israel is not laying claim to the entire West Bank. It lays claim only to the lands that the settlements are on.

Irrelevant? It can't claim any occupied territory.

FOURTH: Historically, several of the West Bank settlements were populated entirely by Jews. In 1948, those Jews were ethnically cleansed by Arabs. So after Israel got attacked by the Arabs in 1967 and won those territories back, it had the right to restore the previous status.

That's a statement of your personal views, not of the law.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST:Unlike the case of the Jews to whom the League of Nations gave a clear and specific right to make their homeland in Palestine, I am not aware of a similar right given by international law for the Chinese to create their homeland in the USA.

The Jews have already availed themselves of their right to establish their homeland in Palestine. It's called Israel.

[Reffo]

Why do you feel that Jordanian citizens of Palestinian extraction have greater rights to return than Israeli citizens of Palestinian extraction? Have they got protekcia from above?

I don't want to repeat myself another 10 times. I think I already addressed this point repeatedly, and I'll direct you to my previous comments on the matter if you're interested in my opinion

You can pretend all you like that you answered this question but you DID NOT!!! And my proof is that you can't show me where you answered it. I mean really answered MY question rather than a question that you made up which was not really MY question.

I'll tell you why you haven't answered it too curlyg: Because only in a make believe world of your own would Jordanian citizens of Palestinian Arab background would have a greater right to settle (return to) than Israeli citizens of Palestinian Arab background if BOTH Israel and Jordan would be deemed as OCCUPIERS of those lands. Only in an inconsistent world full of double standards such as the one you paint, would the status of these two groups of people be different.

Let me present the scenario again for the fourth time:

1. Israel ethnically cleanses the West Bank of Arabs (in the same way that the Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jews from the West Bank in 1948)
2. After 19 years, Jordan would conquer parts of the West Bank, only crown lands, not the old population centers like Ramallah, Hebron, Jericho and other townships or villages.
3. By your definition, Jordan would have to be deemed as occupiers of those lands that they conquer.
4. Lets say that during those 19 years all the Palestinian Arabs who live in Jordan would have been granted full Jordanian citizenship (in the same way that Palestinian Arabs In Israel were granted Israeli citizenship).

By what stretch of the imagination can you claim that Jordan would not transgress the Geneva conventions if it would allow Palestinian Arabs who become Jordanian citizens to settle in parts of the West Bank that it would occupy? How can you claim that if at the same time you accuse Israel of contravening the Geneva conventions if it would allow Israeli citizens of Palestinian Arab background to settle on parts of the West Bank that you claim Israel is an occupier of?

As for the rest of your posts, we have been through it all. I refuse to argue with you any further because we covered it all before. Repetition is not proof. I am happy to let others judge who they side with.


PS
And the status of Jewish Israeli citizens of Palestinian background should not be deemed different to those of Palestinian Arabs who are either Israeli or Jordanian citizens. But I deliberately excluded them from the above scenario because you made my job simpler, curlyg, when you claimed in an earlier post that it is illegal (in your opinion) even for Palestinian Arabs who are Israeli citizens to settle in "the occupied" West Bank.

[Reffo]

I can't believe what I'm reading. Are you actually going to try to dispute that Israel attained independent statehood decades ago? I can define Israel's boundaries for you - they are the armistice lines. The fact that these are not the "recognised borders" is irrelevant. Recognition is declaratory, it has no legal value

They say that the best form of defense is attack. You obviously subscribe to that theory, curlyg.

You put words into my mouth that I did not utter. I did not dispute the fact that Israel attained independent statehood. I disputed the contention that Israel's borders have been fully defined. No matter how much you would like to pretend otherwise, armistice lines are NOT borders. They are artificial boundaries that were there after a temporary halt to hostilities. And I said that until real borders get defined, Israel has as much right to lay claim to parts of Palestine, including parts of the West Bank, as do the Arabs. By that, I mean the lands that the so called settlements are on.

It also means that the League of Nations declaration which declared that Jews are to establish their homeland in Palestine (note: the West Bank too was part of Palestine) has not been fully discharged and therefore it is still in force. Not the least because the Arabs who were also supposed to be beneficiaries, dispute the borders that the Jews are willing to accept as secure borders.

Two peoples lay claim to the same piece of land. UN resbolutions declaring that the only way to finalize the status of those lands is via negotiations. Which bit of that don't you understand curlyg? The logic 101 bits?

Here, read what an armistice is curlyg:

An armistice is a situation in a war where the warring parties agree to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, since it might be just a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace. It is derived from the Latin arma, meaning weapons and statium, meaning a stopping

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice

[Reffo]

I think the following link belongs on this thread too ...

The Myth of International Law

SUCH CLAIMS regarding international law and universal human rights norms, whether made with respect to Israel, the United States, Britain, or other countries do not reflect any consistent moral position. Instead, they are used to pursue a political and ideological agenda that is essentially anti-democratic. If the principles of universal justice were the objectives, rather than simply the means for supporting personal goals, then Palestinian, Syrian, Saudi and other terrorists would have been tried in Britain for war crimes and human rights violations long ago. And the same is true for their European weapons suppliers, bankers, etc.