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.
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.Originally Posted by curlyg
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.