"Settlements" Are Not Illegal

[RoccoR]

Tehon,, et al,

Yes, we are talking about the very same thing.

In Posting #14, I discussed what it was suppose to prevent.

Remember, we are talking about the use of force to effect the deportation or transfer, and NOT a case like the Israelis that moved into the Area "C" (fully Israeli Authority) Settlements.

It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

(COMMENT)

This is screwed-up here.

The Germans were attempting to transfer and deport Jews and other undesirables to "Extermination Camps." The Germans were not making arrests, round-ups, forced transport, and execution in a distant land for the purpose of "colonization."

• Wherever did you get that idea?
​

Separation ---- yes.

•∆• The INTENT was the extermination of the Jews, Gypsies and other undesirables (the political and racial component).
•∆• The RESULT was to cleanse the population and leave behind the contemporary interpretation of the Aryan Race; people of European and Western Asian heritage.
•∆• The exterminations would continue until all Germany could declare, going back three generations, their family was free of any undesirable heritage with "non-Aryans."
​

The Israeli Government DID NOT use "force" in the relocation of Jewish Citizens establishing settlements.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Yeah, RoccoR , it IS a lost cause. Sigh.

Your cause is an attempt to legitimize the oppression of the Palestinian people. and your cause.

While yours is to Racially abuse and demonise the Jews because that is what you have been brainwashed to do. You try to legitimize the genocide of the Jews and the removal of their rights under International treaty and international law. All this is is a continuation of the Nazi's final solution and the muslims religious tenets.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon,, et al,

Yes, we are talking about the very same thing.

In Posting #14, I discussed what it was suppose to prevent.

Remember, we are talking about the use of force to effect the deportation or transfer, and NOT a case like the Israelis that moved into the Area "C" (fully Israeli Authority) Settlements.

It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

(COMMENT)

This is screwed-up here.

The Germans were attempting to transfer and deport Jews and other undesirables to "Extermination Camps." The Germans were not making arrests, round-ups, forced transport, and execution in a distant land for the purpose of "colonization."

• Wherever did you get that idea?
​

Separation ---- yes.

•∆• The INTENT was the extermination of the Jews, Gypsies and other undesirables (the political and racial component).
•∆• The RESULT was to cleanse the population and leave behind the contemporary interpretation of the Aryan Race; people of European and Western Asian heritage.
•∆• The exterminations would continue until all Germany could declare, going back three generations, their family was free of any undesirable heritage with "non-Aryans."
​

The Israeli Government DID NOT use "force" in the relocation of Jewish Citizens establishing settlements.

Most Respectfully,
R

No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.

The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.

 

[Tehon]

Yeah, RoccoR , it IS a lost cause. Sigh.

Your cause is an attempt to legitimize the oppression of the Palestinian people. and your cause.

While yours is to Racially abuse and demonise the Jews because that is what you have been brainwashed to do. You try to legitimize the genocide of the Jews and the removal of their rights under International treaty and international law. All this is is a continuation of the Nazi's final solution and the muslims religious tenets.

We are just having a discussion about the legality of the settlements, don't get hysterical.

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.

The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.

(COMMENT)

Until you can provide such evidence that the Government of Israel issued a notice to some number of its citizens that they are transferred or deported (by order of), the settlements of Israelis into the Area "C" (which the Palestinians have voluntarily relinquished control) --- THEN the settlements in Area "C" are 100% voluntary moves on the part of the Israeli population.

• No transfer by order of the Government.
• No deportation by order of the Government.
​

We will just have to disagree that there is some cause as prohibited by International Law. Under Article 7(2d), Rome Statues, "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law. No segment of the Israeli population fits that bill. The Israeli Government did not deport the Jewish Settlers, nor did the Israeli Government did not move, from one place to another, any portion of its population. Settlements were voluntarily established.

While it can be argued that the Israeli Government, exercising its full control over Area "C" --- PERMITTED it citizens to establish settlements, and may have even assisted the voluntary movement of its citizens, the independent movement by citizens with state permission is NOT prohibited by international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, et al,

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.

The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.

(COMMENT)

Until you can provide such evidence that the Government of Israel issued a notice to some number of its citizens that they are transferred or deported (by order of), the settlements of Israelis into the Area "C" (which the Palestinians have voluntarily relinquished control) --- THEN the settlements in Area "C" are 100% voluntary moves on the part of the Israeli population.

• No transfer by order of the Government.
• No deportation by order of the Government.
​

We will just have to disagree that there is some cause as prohibited by International Law. Under Article 7(2d), Rome Statues, "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law. No segment of the Israeli population fits that bill. The Israeli Government did not deport the Jewish Settlers, nor did the Israeli Government did not move, from one place to another, any portion of its population. Settlements were voluntarily established.

While it can be argued that the Israeli Government, exercising its full control over Area "C" --- PERMITTED it citizens to establish settlements, and may have even assisted the voluntary movement of its citizens, the independent movement by citizens with state permission is NOT prohibited by international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

the independent movement by citizens with state permission is NOT prohibited by international law.

Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tehon, et al,

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.

The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.

(COMMENT)

Until you can provide such evidence that the Government of Israel issued a notice to some number of its citizens that they are transferred or deported (by order of), the settlements of Israelis into the Area "C" (which the Palestinians have voluntarily relinquished control) --- THEN the settlements in Area "C" are 100% voluntary moves on the part of the Israeli population.

• No transfer by order of the Government.
• No deportation by order of the Government.
​

We will just have to disagree that there is some cause as prohibited by International Law. Under Article 7(2d), Rome Statues, "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law. No segment of the Israeli population fits that bill. The Israeli Government did not deport the Jewish Settlers, nor did the Israeli Government did not move, from one place to another, any portion of its population. Settlements were voluntarily established.

While it can be argued that the Israeli Government, exercising its full control over Area "C" --- PERMITTED it citizens to establish settlements, and may have even assisted the voluntary movement of its citizens, the independent movement by citizens with state permission is NOT prohibited by international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

the settlements of Israelis into the Area "C" (which the Palestinians have voluntarily relinquished control)​

The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities

ICRC service​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard these arguments as well.

The Nobel Peace Prize 1994 - "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East:"

• Yasser Arafat
• Shimon Peres
• Yitzhak Rabin

"Following Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Arafat became the leader of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), an umbrella organization for Palestinian guerrilla groups. The groups resorted to terror to attract world attention, but it gradually became clear to Arafat that he would have to accept the state of Israel for the USA to be willing to mediate in the dispute. He approved the meeting of Palestinian negotiators with Israelis at secret negotiations in Oslo." SOURCE: Nobelprize.org
​

It is hard to deny that the Internatonal Community did not recognize the Oslo Accords as legitimate, especially when that recognition included the form of the Nobel Prize.

The SECRET negotiations between the PLO and the Israelis in Oslo (from which the nickname is derived), was universally recognized at the time

The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities

(COMMENT)

• Point #1: Pertaining to the issue of the "transfer." The State of Israel did not "transfer" any of its population to the West Bank and Area "C." The Israeli settlers are "voluntarily moving" to the West Bank. The Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) prohibits the "forcible" transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war.

• Point #2: There is a long tradition of legal confiscation and forfeitures when the government (any government) seizes property used in unlawful practices, and other reasons. Nothing in the Oslo Accords suggests that some special authority was extended.

• Point #3: I do not believe that anyone postulated that the Oslo Accords even addressed the issue of property forfeitures and seizures beyond that authorized by law (military necessity); and of course, such property as may have been used for unlawful purposes.

​

To say the Oslo Accords are "ILLEGAL" is to say that the treaties between warring parties is "illegal" since the victory in the land usually occupies that land.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Tehon,, et al,

Yes, we are talking about the very same thing.

In Posting #14, I discussed what it was suppose to prevent.

Remember, we are talking about the use of force to effect the deportation or transfer, and NOT a case like the Israelis that moved into the Area "C" (fully Israeli Authority) Settlements.

It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

(COMMENT)

This is screwed-up here.

The Germans were attempting to transfer and deport Jews and other undesirables to "Extermination Camps." The Germans were not making arrests, round-ups, forced transport, and execution in a distant land for the purpose of "colonization."

• Wherever did you get that idea?
​

Separation ---- yes.

•∆• The INTENT was the extermination of the Jews, Gypsies and other undesirables (the political and racial component).
•∆• The RESULT was to cleanse the population and leave behind the contemporary interpretation of the Aryan Race; people of European and Western Asian heritage.
•∆• The exterminations would continue until all Germany could declare, going back three generations, their family was free of any undesirable heritage with "non-Aryans."
​

The Israeli Government DID NOT use "force" in the relocation of Jewish Citizens establishing settlements.

Most Respectfully,
R

No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.

The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.

Another thing you forget is that Israel occupied Jordans territory from 1967 to 1988 until Jordan turned it loose and made it anyones land. The arab muslims that had migrated there illegally had no ownership of the land so the land became whoever could hold it. The Jews being the legal owners under INTERNATIONAL LAW became the legal land owners once Jordan withdrew all claims to the land.

 

[Phoenall]

Tehon, et al,

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.

The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.

(COMMENT)

Until you can provide such evidence that the Government of Israel issued a notice to some number of its citizens that they are transferred or deported (by order of), the settlements of Israelis into the Area "C" (which the Palestinians have voluntarily relinquished control) --- THEN the settlements in Area "C" are 100% voluntary moves on the part of the Israeli population.

• No transfer by order of the Government.
• No deportation by order of the Government.
​

We will just have to disagree that there is some cause as prohibited by International Law. Under Article 7(2d), Rome Statues, "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law. No segment of the Israeli population fits that bill. The Israeli Government did not deport the Jewish Settlers, nor did the Israeli Government did not move, from one place to another, any portion of its population. Settlements were voluntarily established.

While it can be argued that the Israeli Government, exercising its full control over Area "C" --- PERMITTED it citizens to establish settlements, and may have even assisted the voluntary movement of its citizens, the independent movement by citizens with state permission is NOT prohibited by international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

the settlements of Israelis into the Area "C" (which the Palestinians have voluntarily relinquished control)​

The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities

ICRC service​

Detail these international laws that make the Oslo accords illegal then, and they have to be real international laws not your usual fake ones.

 

[Shusha]

Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.

No, it is not prohibited. Evidence that it is not prohibited is found in ALL the other examples where an Occupying State permitted or encouraged its own civilian population to migrate into occupied territory, often stating expressly that the intent was to change the demography of the territory for its own gain. NEVER has 49(6) been applied in any of those circumstances. NEVER has 49(6) been considered to have been applicable in any those circumstances.

You are the one not looking objectively at the legal evidence. Look objectively at Indonesia and Timor. Look objectively at Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

 

[Shusha]

The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities

I get what you are saying. Similar to personal contract law -- you can't sign away your human rights nor can your rights be removed by the contract.

Can you point specifically to the articles in the Oslo Accords where the rights of the Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian peoples are removed or renounced?

 

[Phoenall]

Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.

No, it is not prohibited. Evidence that it is not prohibited is found in ALL the other examples where an Occupying State permitted or encouraged its own civilian population to migrate into occupied territory, often stating expressly that the intent was to change the demography of the territory for its own gain. NEVER has 49(6) been applied in any of those circumstances. NEVER has 49(6) been considered to have been applicable in any those circumstances.

You are the one not looking objectively at the legal evidence. Look objectively at Indonesia and Timor. Look objectively at Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

Look no further than the occupation of gaza and the west bank in 1949 by the arab league members. Who then evicted the Jewish land owners and emigrated their own people into the vaccuum formed. Note that the pro islamonazi's dont respond to this when it is brought up

 

[Phoenall]

The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
  
  
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities

I get what you are saying. Similar to personal contract law -- you can't sign away your human rights nor can your rights be removed by the contract.

Can you point specifically to the articles in the Oslo Accords where the rights of the Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian peoples are removed or renounced?

Dont put him on the spot as he will start to spam the board with of topic video's

 

[Shusha]

Dont put him on the spot as he will start to spam the board with of topic video's

I'm relatively confident there is nothing in the Oslo Accords which remove or reliquish Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian rights. He'll have nothing to respond with.

 

[Phoenall]

Dont put him on the spot as he will start to spam the board with of topic video's

I'm relatively confident there is nothing in the Oslo Accords wish remove or reliquish Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian rights. He'll have nothing to respond with.

He will find some obscure paper written by an islamonazi propagandist and pass it of as customary international law.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon,, et al,

Yes, we are talking about the very same thing.

In Posting #14, I discussed what it was suppose to prevent.

Remember, we are talking about the use of force to effect the deportation or transfer, and NOT a case like the Israelis that moved into the Area "C" (fully Israeli Authority) Settlements.

It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

(COMMENT)

This is screwed-up here.

The Germans were attempting to transfer and deport Jews and other undesirables to "Extermination Camps." The Germans were not making arrests, round-ups, forced transport, and execution in a distant land for the purpose of "colonization."

• Wherever did you get that idea?
​

Separation ---- yes.

•∆• The INTENT was the extermination of the Jews, Gypsies and other undesirables (the political and racial component).
•∆• The RESULT was to cleanse the population and leave behind the contemporary interpretation of the Aryan Race; people of European and Western Asian heritage.
•∆• The exterminations would continue until all Germany could declare, going back three generations, their family was free of any undesirable heritage with "non-Aryans."
​

The Israeli Government DID NOT use "force" in the relocation of Jewish Citizens establishing settlements.

Most Respectfully,
R

No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.

The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.

Another thing you forget is that Israel occupied Jordans territory from 1967 to 1988 until Jordan turned it loose and made it anyones land. The arab muslims that had migrated there illegally had no ownership of the land so the land became whoever could hold it. The Jews being the legal owners under INTERNATIONAL LAW became the legal land owners once Jordan withdrew all claims to the land.

Nothing you say here, even if it were true, alters Israel's responsibilities towards those whose land they occupy. The Geneva Convention's concerns are not with who owns the land, only with who lives on the land. People living in the West Bank are being occupied by Israel therefore Israel has to afford those people protections stipulated by the convention, including 49(6).

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
ICRC service

 

[Shusha]

... People living in the West Bank are being occupied by Israel therefore Israel has to afford those people protections stipulated by the convention, including 49(6)...

So many things wrong with this:

1. Throwing out vague terms like "West Bank" has absolutely no legal weight. There is no defined and bordered territory called the "West Bank". It is a generalized term of convenience, not a legal status. If you want to discuss legal issues, please use correct legal terms.

2. Final borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State are to be the subject of permanent status negotiations and treaty.

3. The presence of people of a particular ethnic group, of itself, does not harm, reduce or in any way change the sovereignty of a territory.

4. There is no legal requirement for an Occupying Power to extend its obligation to protected persons to actively prevent voluntary migration of people of a particular ethnic group. In fact, such a prevention of voluntary migration based on ethnicity would be in contravention of IHL.

 

[Tehon]

Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.

No, it is not prohibited. Evidence that it is not prohibited is found in ALL the other examples where an Occupying State permitted or encouraged its own civilian population to migrate into occupied territory, often stating expressly that the intent was to change the demography of the territory for its own gain. NEVER has 49(6) been applied in any of those circumstances. NEVER has 49(6) been considered to have been applicable in any those circumstances.

You are the one not looking objectively at the legal evidence. Look objectively at Indonesia and Timor. Look objectively at Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

OJ got away with murder, does that invalidate all laws prohibiting murder? Your argument is ridiculous, why do you show such callous disregard for human rights laws.

 

[Shusha]

Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.

No, it is not prohibited. Evidence that it is not prohibited is found in ALL the other examples where an Occupying State permitted or encouraged its own civilian population to migrate into occupied territory, often stating expressly that the intent was to change the demography of the territory for its own gain. NEVER has 49(6) been applied in any of those circumstances. NEVER has 49(6) been considered to have been applicable in any those circumstances.

You are the one not looking objectively at the legal evidence. Look objectively at Indonesia and Timor. Look objectively at Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

OJ got away with murder, does that invalidate all laws prohibiting murder? Your argument is ridiculous, why do you show such callous disregard for human rights laws.

Oh boy.

1. I take it by your response that you are not willing to look objectively at ALL the instances of voluntary migration of people of a nationality or ethnicity into territory under dispute.

2. When unable to address a problem objectively, you appeal to emotion.

3. Your appeal to emotion includes a damning assessment of both my personality and my position, both contrary to the evidence of my posting history on this board.

So, since you seem to be ignorant of what my argument is, let me outline it for you:

1. BOTH the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people have a right to self-determination, self-government, a State. The rights of BOTH peoples are inherent and inalienable.

2. The solution to the problem is through a peace treaty which reflects the concerns and interests of both parties and is mutually agreed upon.

3. Ethnic cleansing, intentionally creating a homogeneous peoples in a given territory through various methods, is inherently morally incorrect and legally problematic. What that MEANS, in this context, is that BOTH Israel and (the potential) Palestine must include members of both populations and anything which actively prevents this should be discouraged. In no case in modern history is a territory required to be ethnically cleansed before sovereignty is established. In fact, in all cases, the inherent rights of the residents, including those who immigrated voluntarily, are taken into consideration and become integrated into the new sovereignty.

4. The sovereignty of each territory is not dependent on either territory being rid of the opposing group.

5. The law which you are quoting is demonstrably NOT a law. You are arguing that a law exists where in every other case it occurred it was not deemed to have been a law. The correct analogy in your example is where there are eight instances in the world where a man has cut his wife's hair and in no case was the law against murder brought up. Because cutting a woman's hair, while possibly a moral violation against the integrity of his wife, is not, in fact, illegal and not equivalent to murder.

And just to throw in my own appeal to emotion, I am having two other discussions on threads here today. One is against a poster who thinks I should be nuked and erased from history simply because I belong to a certain group which is inherently evil. The other is against a poster who claims he has nothing against the Jews but he has a big problem with Jews -- ooops, he meant to say Zionists, which are just, you know, Jews who want to live in their own homeland. Kinda like the Palestinians do.

In contrast, let me outline what I think your argument is. And please feel free to correct me.

In order to have a viable Palestinian State there can't be any Jews in it. Jews shouldn't be allowed to build on land which MIGHT one day become part of a Palestinian State. Because having Jews in a Palestinian State would be terrible and morally wrong. It is not legally permissible to have a State with more than one ethnic group. The mere presence of a peoples of a differing ethnic group is inherently de-stablizing. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to prevent people of a specific ethnic group from voluntarily migrating to new places. It is permissible, both morally and legally, to limit migration based on ethnicity.

Now correct me, or admit which of us has a "callous disregard for human rights".