Settlements only "illegal" for Jews

[Coyote]

You make some interesting points, which I put in bold.

On the first...there are some issues.

First...the rights of a people to self determination. Both the Palestinian people and the Jewish people have those rights. When you bring in the argument of immigration from all around the world, you ignore some basic facts. One, that the Jewish people have long inhabited that region, predating the other cultures.

That is well documented in archeological evidence and the fact that there has always been a continuous Jewish presence in that region. Certainly, given the many groups struggling for a national presence in post-Mandate Middle East, the Jews deserve a piece of that pie. Judaism is a religion, but it is also an ethnicity. So why are they treated differently than other ethnic groups or peoples seeking self determination?

If immigration is an issue, the Palestinians themselves are comprised of those people who’s ancestors have lived there since before Islam, peoples who have immigrated in at later times, and people who immigrated much more recently from Egypt and other surrounding areas to work.

So it seems if immigration is somehow a disqualifier for having a state you would have to apply the same to both sides.

I have no issue with both peoples having the right to self determination. At present one has and one hasn't , that's the issue for me.

I don't ignore the fact that there has been a Jewish presence in the region, I just refuse to accept that it negates the right of the Palestinians to authentic self determination.

I would agree that it is an issue, but I also see the other side of the equation.

The Palestinians are a people, and it's despicable that there are those that continuously deny them their identity. They are there, and they have rights of self determination.

But - do those rights necessarily include national self determination, a right to a nation? I've heard arguments on this that are, imo, convincing.

1. What determines a right to national self determination? If the Palestinians have that right, why not the Kurds, the Basques, numerous Native American tribes, etc? None have a nation. That doesn't mean the Palestinians don't have the right to exist as a people, with a degree of autonomy, but nation building would seem to me to be another step. And that leads to ...

2. In order to build a nation, you need a strong enough national identity, to pull together and achieve it as one group. That doesn't seem to have happened. As a group, the Palestinians in Gaza and the ones in the WB seem quite different. They can't seem to unite together to build a state. Instead, what seems to unite them is opposition to Israel as a state, and that isn't enough to achieve a nation. Their desire to oppose Israel is stronger than their desire to BUILD a state. That doesn't mean Israel is an angel in all this, or hasn't acted in ways that further fracture Palestinian self determination, but their national aspirations (let's build a state) aren't strong enough to get past the aspiration of "oppose Israel at all costs".

3. States aren't "given" - they are generally taken. And once taken, built (or destroyed). Israel took it's state, built it, achieved an economy, culture, world wide presence and largely peaceable relations within the international communities. They unite behind a democratically elected parliamentary system of representative democracy. The Palestinians can't seem to unite and haven't even held an election since....when? If they can't unite in a constructive way to build a state, and won't live peaceably with it's neighbors (I'm thinking Gaza)...then what rights do they have for a state? Personally I do think they have a right, but they have to show themselves capable of taking that right and creating a functioning state that is willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Just my opinion. I don't think a state is necessarily a "right".

I also don't subscribe to the Jewish people being an ethnically homogenous group and see them as a religious group made up of different ethnicities. Hence we see sephardi Jews who are the descendants of the Jews from Spain and Portugal. Ashkenazi Jews with their roots in Europe and we had the hullabalu when the black Jews wanted in on the Jewish state. To me its as daft as saying Christianity is an ethnic group. Would you support the ousting of some indigenous people to create the Christian state within it's borders? Or what about telling the Eskimos to make way for one for Jehovahs witnesses?

In think that is a point will take a lot discussion, but would need it's own thread. Even if we say they aren't a homogeneous group - don't the Jews in Palestine, who have been there forever, have the right to self determination and the state they built? They can define the state anyway they wish (just like any other state has the right to) - and they can allow to immigrate whomever they wish (just like any other state has a right to). So let's set aside immigration and just look at the rights of a minority that has existed as a homogenous culture within that area for thousands of years.

Maybe that's why there is some discussion about ethnicity but to me it is largely irrelevant now and all's we have to do is concentrate on ending the conflict in the most just and pragmatic way we can, which to me is a two state solution on the 67 lines.

If we did that, what would happen to all the Jews living outside the area you would define as Israel?

My point about immigration is that it is unreasonable to me that

A. A Jewish person from anywhere in the world can " return " to a place they have had no discernible connection with for millenia in a physical way but a person whose entire family have lived there for centuries prior to the advent of zionism has that right denied to them by said person. Sure immigration is an issue for both groups but can you honestly tell me that the above can be seen as just ?

The "right to return" is something granted by the state. So Israel, the state, has set itself up to be the homeland for the Jewish people. That means the Jewish people, anywhere in the world, have the opportunity to "return" per the laws of that state. That really is no different than may other states. For example - I think Ireland has it for people of Irish descent, giving immigration preference to people of a specific ethnic background. That is all this really is.

When it comes to the "right of return" for Palestinians, I think that gets complex. First - I do agree their right to live in the area of their forbears is every bit as strong as the right of the Jewish people to do so. But - the only "right of return" - for anyone - is what a state is willing to grant. My ancestry includes Welsh - but that doesn't give me any "right of return" to Wales.

B That those "returning" actually maintain a dual nationality whilst the Palestinians have no such option because their right to a state of their own is being continually denied them? One group can be the citizen of two nations and the other hasn't even a state to call their own in reality. Does that seem just to you ?

A lot of nations allow for dual nationality so...I'm not sure why that is an issue?

And, I agree - Palestinians should have citizenship, of some nation. There is a Palestinian citizenship even though they haven't a nation.

There are a lot of solutions to this unfairness though, that don't necessarily include a separate nation. I'm no longer as convinced as I once was that two states is possible anymore, but I am convinced the status quo, of people under military law, with far fewer rights than granted under civilian law, is not sustainable. Nor is a status quo of violence directed towards civilians. Nor is a government so rife with corruption and dissent it can't take care of it's people, or that kills it's people for working on collaborative projects with "the enemy".

 

[Shusha]

Imo, the Palestinians ... should have legal title to those territories occupied by Israel since 1967

Imo yes, the recognized international borders are the pre June 67 borders

Your opinions do not formulate international law. And what Palestinians "should" have is not, in point of fact, what they actually do have. The question of who "should" have legal title to the territories is not the subject of this thread. The subject is who does hold legal title to the territories.

A few basic legal facts:

UN or international "recognition" does not and can not, in point of law, create borders.

There is no international border between Israel and Palestine. Never has been.

The 1949 Armistice Agreement is a legal treaty between Israel and Jordan. The conflict which gave rise to that treaty is over. A Peace Treaty exists between Israel and Jordan. Therefore, the 1949 Armistice Line (Green Line) no longer exists in law. Jordan abandoned all claims to the territory. Israel and Jordan agreed that the border between their two sovereign nations is the Jordan river.

There is no such thing as "pre June 1967 borders" between Israel and "Palestine". And such a thing has absolutely no legal weight.

The treaty which exists between Israel and "Palestine" does not demarcate borders between Israel and Palestine but only determines that borders are a final status issue yet to be determined between the Parties. This is the only treaty which has legal validity between Israel and the government of "Palestine".



So, regardless of what "should" happen (and I'm perfectly happy to discuss that with you if you'd like), we are dealing with what HAS happened. The problem with the application of terms such as "occupation" and applications of laws of occupation such as GCIV 49(6), in the context of the I/P conflict, is that there is absolutely no legal way (yet) to determine what territory 'belongs' to Israel and what 'belongs' to "Palestine". Therefore there is no way to determine what territory is 'occupied' and what is not. Nor a way to determine where (and therefore IF) Israel has "transferred" her population. (There are a host of other arguments, but one step at a time.)

And that said, going back to the thread, the international borders between other occupations are perfectly clear and well established in law, which is not the case here. Thus, the occupations of other states are much more clear in the application of GCIV 49(6), and yet, are not receiving condemnation from the international community and the UN.

Not only that, but the EU, as an example, is demonstrating a blatant hypocrisy with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara. The EU refuses to make trade agreements with Israel in the "OPT" because it does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over that territory. YET, the EU makes trade agreements with Morocco, explicitly to expropriate resources from Western Sahara, even though it does not recognize Morocco's sovereignty over that territory. What gives?

 

[Shusha]

The valid legal argument is the applicability of the 4th GC to the Israeli occupation and illegal settlement of the territories it captured and has tried to annexe ( flatly rejected internationally ) in the wake of the 1967 conflict. You will know this and you will know that a great many legal scholars along with most HR organisations hold the view that it applies to the Israeli occupation and settlement. If you want to dismiss that as " never " having seen one you are just confirming what I said.

Any "legal scholar" who is arguing on the basis of "1967 borders" is so blatantly incorrect it absolutely defies belief. There is absolutely no correct legal argument to be made here. And the fact that it is even attempted, just simply, reeks. Do you think there are that many incompetent legal scholars in the world? Or, maybe, could there be something else going on here?

At the beginning I stated a wish to see this very question , the very argument , put to the likes of the ICJ so as to set the stage for meaningful negotiations aimed at a just resolution of the conflict. That means exactly what it says, that I accept there are different POV that have some validity , you cannot even get that far

I'm sorry, you've been on this board how many days now? You know what, exactly, about my position on the conflict?

Here's the thing. Given that the entire freaking world is applying laws to Israel in a completely unique way, such as creating borders where there are none, WHY would Israel trust the ICJ, as a representative of the international community, to adjudicate fairly and reasonably?

 

[Shusha]

I have no issue with both peoples having the right to self determination. ... I don't ignore the fact that there has been a Jewish presence in the region

I also don't subscribe to the Jewish people being an ethnically homogenous group and see them as a religious group made up of different ethnicities. Hence we see sephardi Jews who are the descendants of the Jews from Spain and Portugal. Ashkenazi Jews with their roots in Europe and we had the hullabalu when the black Jews wanted in on the Jewish state. To me its as daft as saying Christianity is an ethnic group. Would you support the ousting of some indigenous people to create the Christian state within it's borders? Or what about telling the Eskimos to make way for one for Jehovahs witnesses?

Its interesting that you have "no issue" with the Jewish peoples having the right to self-determination and then immediately proceed to detail all the reasons why the Jewish peoples claim to self-determination should be negated or minimized because, well, they don't meet some sort of imagined criteria for homogeneous ethnicity, and are really just a religious group with no rights to self-determination.

Its also interesting, imo, that you then proceed to DEFINE ethnicity by geographic area or skin color (!!!!) rather than actual ethnic or cultural differences. Do you know what the actual cultural differences are between Sephardi, Ashkenazi and Mizrahi?

And past that, you are making an argument that a culture which is forced out of a homeland and dispersed to live in other cultures LOSES its ethnicity and right to self-determination by virtue of the fact that they "become" the culture that they live in. You are literally making the argument that Arab Palestinians in, say, the US, are no longer Palestinians, but simply Arabs from the US. And then you make the argument that they are just Muslims, actually. Just Muslims from the United States. Therefore, they have no right to self-determination because they have no "real" shared culture and no "real" ethnicity, but are just a religious group.

 

[Spartacactcus]

I would agree that it is an issue, but I also see the other side of the equation.

The Palestinians are a people, and it's despicable that there are those that continuously deny them their identity. They are there, and they have rights of self determination.

But - do those rights necessarily include national self determination, a right to a nation? I've heard arguments on this that are, imo, convincing.

1. What determines a right to national self determination? If the Palestinians have that right, why not the Kurds, the Basques, numerous Native American tribes, etc? None have a nation. That doesn't mean the Palestinians don't have the right to exist as a people, with a degree of autonomy, but nation building would seem to me to be another step. And that leads to ...

2. In order to build a nation, you need a strong enough national identity, to pull together and achieve it as one group. That doesn't seem to have happened. As a group, the Palestinians in Gaza and the ones in the WB seem quite different. They can't seem to unite together to build a state. Instead, what seems to unite them is opposition to Israel as a state, and that isn't enough to achieve a nation. Their desire to oppose Israel is stronger than their desire to BUILD a state. That doesn't mean Israel is an angel in all this, or hasn't acted in ways that further fracture Palestinian self determination, but their national aspirations (let's build a state) aren't strong enough to get past the aspiration of "oppose Israel at all costs".

3. States aren't "given" - they are generally taken. And once taken, built (or destroyed). Israel took it's state, built it, achieved an economy, culture, world wide presence and largely peaceable relations within the international communities. They unite behind a democratically elected parliamentary system of representative democracy. The Palestinians can't seem to unite and haven't even held an election since....when? If they can't unite in a constructive way to build a state, and won't live peaceably with it's neighbors (I'm thinking Gaza)...then what rights do they have for a state? Personally I do think they have a right, but they have to show themselves capable of taking that right and creating a functioning state that is willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Just my opinion. I don't think a state is necessarily a "right".


In think that is a point will take a lot discussion, but would need it's own thread. Even if we say they aren't a homogeneous group - don't the Jews in Palestine, who have been there forever, have the right to self determination and the state they built? They can define the state anyway they wish (just like any other state has the right to) - and they can allow to immigrate whomever they wish (just like any other state has a right to). So let's set aside immigration and just look at the rights of a minority that has existed as a homogenous culture within that area for thousands of years.


If we did that, what would happen to all the Jews living outside the area you would define as Israel?



The "right to return" is something granted by the state. So Israel, the state, has set itself up to be the homeland for the Jewish people. That means the Jewish people, anywhere in the world, have the opportunity to "return" per the laws of that state. That really is no different than may other states. For example - I think Ireland has it for people of Irish descent, giving immigration preference to people of a specific ethnic background. That is all this really is.

When it comes to the "right of return" for Palestinians, I think that gets complex. First - I do agree their right to live in the area of their forbears is every bit as strong as the right of the Jewish people to do so. But - the only "right of return" - for anyone - is what a state is willing to grant. My ancestry includes Welsh - but that doesn't give me any "right of return" to Wales.


A lot of nations allow for dual nationality so...I'm not sure why that is an issue?

And, I agree - Palestinians should have citizenship, of some nation. There is a Palestinian citizenship even though they haven't a nation.

There are a lot of solutions to this unfairness though, that don't necessarily include a separate nation. I'm no longer as convinced as I once was that two states is possible anymore, but I am convinced the status quo, of people under military law, with far fewer rights than granted under civilian law, is not sustainable. Nor is a status quo of violence directed towards civilians. Nor is a government so rife with corruption and dissent it can't take care of it's people, or that kills it's people for working on collaborative projects with "the enemy".

You make many valid points and counter arguments but I hate responding to very large and diverse posts and much prefer a targeted more narrowly defined discussion about any point raised so will not disect this response with qoutations specific to points raised. We have time in the future , hopefully , to cover all and more that is relevant to the issues within the conflict.

I think the Palestinians have the right to a state of their own and to be able to enjoy authentic autonomy within that territory. That I think it doesn't mean that I think that only the Palestinians should enjoy the right to autonomy. Why not Kurds , Basques , Catalans , Sahrawi and take each case on its merits ? I'm fine with peoples wanting to seperate from a national entity too. The nation state is a relatively new human invention with most places having lived under provincial/tribal rule for most of our history.

Concerning the state of Palestinian nationalism I feel the Israeli domination of and power to influence/control all aspects of Palestinian life in the territories plays the crucial role in hampering the Palestinian ability to develop the organisations and consensuses needed to achieve what you rightfully claim are the building blocks of nationhood. They live , imo , in a deliberately imposed state of arrested development precisely so the chances of them being able to take the necessary steps to nationhood are never reached. You appear to wish to want to ascribe that to the Palestinians themselves entirely without factoring in the hopeless disparity in power and how that power is being used.

Moshe Dayan said , to paraphrase , " we will treat them ( the Palestinians ) like dogs and those that will leave will leave and we will see how that goes " and I can at least thank him for the honesty.

Have the Palestinians also played a role in their current dire situation ? Absolutely, in the same way many peoples have having found themselves in such powerless/dominated positions.

The comment about nations being taken , whilst a historical truism , isn't enjoying the support it once had. The age of might being right has been challenged by the development of international laws aimed at its erradication. If you believe that might is right then there's no need to reference the laws at all. That might leave you to find yourself stuck in a position of cherrypicking those laws and there's nothing worse to watch imho.

As for the Jews who don't want to go and live in Israel I say it's their choice. It has been a problem for zionism from the outset, leading to some interesting activities, and I don't see it ending anytime soon.

People usually have the right to enter and leave countries as they choose, to return to their homes after a conflict that has been systematically denied to the Palestinians by the state of Israel since it's creation. I think to introduce your Welsh ancestry as a right of return issue doesn't even compare.

The point about dual nationality was concerned with the fact that a Jewish person can enjoy the full citizen rights and regard themselves as nationals of two countries enjoying full self determination/sovereignty whereas the Palestinian can only relate that to one or no countries seeing as Palestine itself is not yet a sovereign state enjoying full autonomy.

I have obviusly not responded to everything but bear in mind the comment made at the opening about having time for specifics in the future.

And, it might be better to break things down to into smaller parts with a better focus. Without trying to control the discussion I won't be replying to another long and diverse post where the subjects are skipped through and done an injustice as a result imo

Happy to discuss specific points raissed in any of the posts so far , just not the long and spliced versions of posting

 

[Spartacactcus]

Your opinions do not formulate international law. And what Palestinians "should" have is not, in point of fact, what they actually do have. The question of who "should" have legal title to the territories is not the subject of this thread. The subject is who does hold legal title to the territories.

A few basic legal facts:

UN or international "recognition" does not and can not, in point of law, create borders.

There is no international border between Israel and Palestine. Never has been.

The 1949 Armistice Agreement is a legal treaty between Israel and Jordan. The conflict which gave rise to that treaty is over. A Peace Treaty exists between Israel and Jordan. Therefore, the 1949 Armistice Line (Green Line) no longer exists in law. Jordan abandoned all claims to the territory. Israel and Jordan agreed that the border between their two sovereign nations is the Jordan river.

There is no such thing as "pre June 1967 borders" between Israel and "Palestine". And such a thing has absolutely no legal weight.

The treaty which exists between Israel and "Palestine" does not demarcate borders between Israel and Palestine but only determines that borders are a final status issue yet to be determined between the Parties. This is the only treaty which has legal validity between Israel and the government of "Palestine".



So, regardless of what "should" happen (and I'm perfectly happy to discuss that with you if you'd like), we are dealing with what HAS happened. The problem with the application of terms such as "occupation" and applications of laws of occupation such as GCIV 49(6), in the context of the I/P conflict, is that there is absolutely no legal way (yet) to determine what territory 'belongs' to Israel and what 'belongs' to "Palestine". Therefore there is no way to determine what territory is 'occupied' and what is not. Nor a way to determine where (and therefore IF) Israel has "transferred" her population. (There are a host of other arguments, but one step at a time.)

And that said, going back to the thread, the international borders between other occupations are perfectly clear and well established in law, which is not the case here. Thus, the occupations of other states are much more clear in the application of GCIV 49(6), and yet, are not receiving condemnation from the international community and the UN.

Not only that, but the EU, as an example, is demonstrating a blatant hypocrisy with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara. The EU refuses to make trade agreements with Israel in the "OPT" because it does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over that territory. YET, the EU makes trade agreements with Morocco, explicitly to expropriate resources from Western Sahara, even though it does not recognize Morocco's sovereignty over that territory. What gives?

I never claimed my opinions formulate international law , I said they are based on interrnational law and how I believe ( as well as a whole host of RL experts believe ) they apply to this conflict and how they should be the arbitors for the framework with which to try to resolve the conflict in as just a way as is possible given the current situation and the obvious disparity of power between the two sides .

You asked me to give you a legal opinion regarding the application of the 4th GC to the events of 1967 and since the Israeli occupation of those territories. I gave you the opinion of none other than the legal advisor to the Israeli govt at the tme , Theodor Meron. If you read that link it is clear that he thinks they apply to the Israeli presence in those territories and gives the govt advice to specifically avoid the transfer of Israeli citizens to those regions precisely because he thinks the 4th GC would apply . He mentions the 4th GC on multiple occasions throughout his commentary .

If you are not willing to accept what he states about how 4th GC is applicable and how Israeli civilian settlement would be seen as illegal ( asking only for " military camps" ) I don't expect you to accept anyone elses.

If I were the only person saying the laws apply then you would be right to call foul but the truth is that there are a great many experts/groups that also hold the same view as me , including the legal advisor to the Israeli govt circa 1967.You didn't even respond to the post itself, which I found extremely odd.

To claim as you have , that there is no argument is both revealing and contrary to the facts

 

[Spartacactcus]

[
Its interesting that you have "no issue" with the Jewish peoples having the right to self-determination and then immediately proceed to detail all the reasons why the Jewish peoples claim to self-determination should be negated or minimized because, well, they don't meet some sort of imagined criteria for homogeneous ethnicity, and are really just a religious group with no rights to self-determination.

Its also interesting, imo, that you then proceed to DEFINE ethnicity by geographic area or skin color (!!!!) rather than actual ethnic or cultural differences. Do you know what the actual cultural differences are between Sephardi, Ashkenazi and Mizrahi?

And past that, you are making an argument that a culture which is forced out of a homeland and dispersed to live in other cultures LOSES its ethnicity and right to self-determination by virtue of the fact that they "become" the culture that they live in. You are literally making the argument that Arab Palestinians in, say, the US, are no longer Palestinians, but simply Arabs from the US. And then you make the argument that they are just Muslims, actually. Just Muslims from the United States. Therefore, they have no right to self-determination because they have no "real" shared culture and no "real" ethnicity, but are just a religious group.

My response was to the claim that ,as I saw it , the Jewish people are somehow an ethnically defined group, an ethnic people. I don't accept that they are and gave my reasons without even referencing the process of religious conversions. It was never meant to strip the Jewish people of their state or their self determination. So it was less " interesting " and more an accurate assessment of a religious group being defined as an ethnic group imo

From what I know of the different ethnicities that make up the Jewish people they have different ways of expressing/viewing their Jewishness brought about by their different cultural and social interactions in different parts of the world with different cultures they encountered. Is that wrong ? If it is then I am happy to learn what the situation is. I remember reading how the Ashkenazi Jews supplanted the previous Jewish community of Poland and changed the customs/language etc

I never claimed that a people lose their culture in an interaction with other cultures or that the process should deny them a right to self determination. Cultures are no static entities and are shaped by their encounters with other cultures , historical events , social changes etc etc And erm , the Palestinians are not just " Muslims " The Palestinian in the US is a Palestinian national , of Arab ethnicity that might or might not have US citezenship.

You might need to desist from your compulsion to try to twist everything people are saying in a bid to ascribe to them views they don't hold .

 

[rylah]

[
Accusation? Interesting that you take it thus, and that you home in on that one meaning (but not surprising).

I have know idea how it ties into "Judenrein". That's your thing and that seems to be your word of the day.

I used the term Judenrein because it represents an accurate description of your people's policies and attitudes towards Jews as is depicted in this thread.

I used the word accusation because that is the term that best describes your snide comment levelled against the non-antisemites in this thread about some supposed "circle jerk".

If there is anything else you need to know about the accurate use of the English language, don't be afraid to ask, now, k?

I would say your use of Judenrein is nothing more than your typical flame bait. Sorry if the use of circle jerk triggered you, that wasn’t my intent, especially given I wasn’t even conversing with you. However if you have the cognitive ability to read the entire definition of the term, you will find it accurately describes IP, where 99% of the posters are Pro-Israel, largely agreeing with each other, patting each on the back and creating an echo chamber. I can thing of maybe three or four here who provide substantive and thought provoking debate (ie debate that makes one work, question assumptions, and rethink ideas). You are not one of them. Out of everyone here, there are only two on Team Palestine who bother to post here much...and, most of the time it is just one. Gotta hand it to Tinmore, he puts up with a hell of a lot of abuse but never seems to resort to personal attacks.

So your homework is to explore the entire meaning of “circle jerk” and consider how it applies to IP and your own activities. Think you can handle that?

In the meantime, settlements. Shusha has a valid point (and actually posted an excellent article). If settlements are illegal, then that needs to be applied evenly to other occupied territories that fall under the same circumstances, and she is right. Except for Russia/Ukraine and Israel, it is not. Should they be considered legal? If so....is what Russia is doing in Ukraine legal? If it is illegal, shouldn’t the same standard be applied to all such situations?

Now you have some choices to make...do you continue your circle jerk, do you devolve once again into attacking spelling and grammar, or do actually add to the larger discussion as put forth in the OP?

I think I know the answer but would love to be proved wrong.

You're equating Russia with Israel now,
and still don't get why this whole anecdote sounds ridiculous?

If you had read the article that was posted, you would see that Russia was one of the countries listed in creating settlements in occupied territory, along with other lesser known comparable situations.

Sorry you don’t like it, take it up with the author

The author was actually correct,
shows the ridiculous hypocrisy of those calling Jews illegal in Judea,
and the stretch idiots can make with a straight face comparing Israel to Russia.

Case in example.

 

[rylah]

Your opinions do not formulate international law. And what Palestinians "should" have is not, in point of fact, what they actually do have. The question of who "should" have legal title to the territories is not the subject of this thread. The subject is who does hold legal title to the territories.

A few basic legal facts:

UN or international "recognition" does not and can not, in point of law, create borders.

There is no international border between Israel and Palestine. Never has been.

The 1949 Armistice Agreement is a legal treaty between Israel and Jordan. The conflict which gave rise to that treaty is over. A Peace Treaty exists between Israel and Jordan. Therefore, the 1949 Armistice Line (Green Line) no longer exists in law. Jordan abandoned all claims to the territory. Israel and Jordan agreed that the border between their two sovereign nations is the Jordan river.

There is no such thing as "pre June 1967 borders" between Israel and "Palestine". And such a thing has absolutely no legal weight.

The treaty which exists between Israel and "Palestine" does not demarcate borders between Israel and Palestine but only determines that borders are a final status issue yet to be determined between the Parties. This is the only treaty which has legal validity between Israel and the government of "Palestine".



So, regardless of what "should" happen (and I'm perfectly happy to discuss that with you if you'd like), we are dealing with what HAS happened. The problem with the application of terms such as "occupation" and applications of laws of occupation such as GCIV 49(6), in the context of the I/P conflict, is that there is absolutely no legal way (yet) to determine what territory 'belongs' to Israel and what 'belongs' to "Palestine". Therefore there is no way to determine what territory is 'occupied' and what is not. Nor a way to determine where (and therefore IF) Israel has "transferred" her population. (There are a host of other arguments, but one step at a time.)

And that said, going back to the thread, the international borders between other occupations are perfectly clear and well established in law, which is not the case here. Thus, the occupations of other states are much more clear in the application of GCIV 49(6), and yet, are not receiving condemnation from the international community and the UN.

Not only that, but the EU, as an example, is demonstrating a blatant hypocrisy with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara. The EU refuses to make trade agreements with Israel in the "OPT" because it does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over that territory. YET, the EU makes trade agreements with Morocco, explicitly to expropriate resources from Western Sahara, even though it does not recognize Morocco's sovereignty over that territory. What gives?

I never claimed my opinions formulate international law , I said they are based on interrnational law and how I believe ( as well as a whole host of RL experts believe ) they apply to this conflict and how they should be the arbitors for the framework with which to try to resolve the conflict in as just a way as is possible given the current situation and the obvious disparity of power between the two sides .

You asked me to give you a legal opinion regarding the application of the 4th GC to the events of 1967 and since the Israeli occupation of those territories. I gave you the opinion of none other than the legal advisor to the Israeli govt at the tme , Theodor Meron. If you read that link it is clear that he thinks they apply to the Israeli presence in those territories and gives the govt advice to specifically avoid the transfer of Israeli citizens to those regions precisely because he thinks the 4th GC would apply . He mentions the 4th GC on multiple occasions throughout his commentary .

If you are not willing to accept what he states about how 4th GC is applicable and how Israeli civilian settlement would be seen as illegal ( asking only for " military camps" ) I don't expect you to accept anyone elses.

If I were the only person saying the laws apply then you would be right to call foul but the truth is that there are a great many experts/groups that also hold the same view as me , including the legal advisor to the Israeli govt circa 1967.You didn't even respond to the post itself, which I found extremely odd.

To claim as you have , that there is no argument is both revealing and contrary to the facts

The Levy Report concluded there's no legal basis to define Israel's sovereignty as occupation,
or Jewish presences as illegal in Judea.

 

[Shusha]

People usually have the right to enter and leave countries as they choose, to return to their homes after a conflict ...

The conflict is still on-going. Return can and should be discussed when the conflict ends. Not before.

 

[Indeependent]

Who cares. Conquest is what matters otherwise New York would be controlled by Native Americans. Jews conquered their ancient homeland. Islamists outnumber them 1000 to 1 have em come and take it. I welcome the confrontation. Let’s see what happens.

Gaza is a pain in the ass. But its no threat. An independent West Bank would be no different (as long as Israel controls the Jordan valley.)

“Palestinians” aren’t happy. Why don’t they move? Real Estate in Syria is a bargain these days...

Why should they move from their homeland?

Like Iraq just kicked millions of Syria into Europe.
And yet, no Thread.

 

[Coyote]

Who cares. Conquest is what matters otherwise New York would be controlled by Native Americans. Jews conquered their ancient homeland. Islamists outnumber them 1000 to 1 have em come and take it. I welcome the confrontation. Let’s see what happens.

Gaza is a pain in the ass. But its no threat. An independent West Bank would be no different (as long as Israel controls the Jordan valley.)

“Palestinians” aren’t happy. Why don’t they move? Real Estate in Syria is a bargain these days...

Why should they move from their homeland?

Like Iraq just kicked millions of Syria into Europe.
And yet, no Thread.

So start one.

 

[Spartacactcus]

The Levy Report concluded there's no legal basis to define Israel's sovereignty as occupation,
or Jewish presences as illegal in Judea.

Of course you would expect that such a fanatical group as those on the Levy committee would seek to justify the retroactive legalisation of illegal outposts in the occupied territory just like you would expect fanatics of the Palestinian side to come up with a report that retroactively redefined some terrorist actions as legitimate acts of war

 

[Shusha]

You asked me to give you a legal opinion regarding the application of the 4th GC to the events of 1967 and since the Israeli occupation of those territories. I gave you the opinion of none other than the legal advisor to the Israeli govt at the tme , Theodor Meron.

The link wouldn't open for me and I can only find Meron's letters in their original Hebrew. (My Hebrew is not good enough to translate them).

Nevertheless, I have found some partial quotes, including this one:

We argue that this area of the Mandate on the Land of Israel was divided in 1949 only according to Armistice Lines, which, under the Armistice agreements themselves, had merely military, not political, significance and were not determinative until the final settlement. We go on to say that the agreements themselves were achieved as a temporary measure according to Security Council action based on Article 40 of the United Nations Charter. We also argue that Jordan itself unilaterally annexed the West Bank to the Kingdom of Jordan in 1950 and that the Armistice Lines no longer exist because the agreements expired due to the war and Arab aggression.

Thus, it appears to me that Judge Meron is making the same argument that I am making. And later, in another quote, he suggests that while the above is true, the international community is not likely to accept it and suggests other legal arguments to support the right of Israeli settlement in the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

I'll remind you of the specific clauses in the Armistice Agreement of 1949:

Article II (2): It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations

Article VI (8,9): The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto

 

[Spartacactcus]

The conflict is still on-going. Return can and should be discussed when the conflict ends. Not before.

That would apply only to Palestinians wishing to return and not the likes of those Russian Jewish people illegally residing in the WB ?

 

[Indeependent]

The conflict is still on-going. Return can and should be discussed when the conflict ends. Not before.

That would apply only to Palestinians wishing to return and not the likes of those Russian Jewish people illegally residing in the WB ?

You mean the Jews who won the war against Jordan?
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Levy Report concluded there's no legal basis to define Israel's sovereignty as occupation,
or Jewish presences as illegal in Judea.

Of course you would expect that such a fanatical group as those on the Levy committee would seek to justify the retroactive legalisation of illegal outposts in the occupied territory just like you would expect fanatics of the Palestinian side to come up with a report that retroactively redefined some terrorist actions as legitimate acts of war

There simply is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling Israeli control of Judea and Samaria an occupation or illegal in any way. Settlements are legal or illegal according to Israeli law and the UN has no legitimate jurisdiction in the matter.

 

[Spartacactcus]

You mean the Jews who won the war against Jordan?
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked.

You mean the Jewish people that started the war that led to the Jordanian attack ? Hardly surprising considering they were in a mutual defence pact with Egypt when Israel decided to attack Nassers forces.

Moshe Dayan later admitted that around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israeli forces. But if it sits better with you to ignore these facts and blame the Arabs go for it.

 

[Shusha]

My response was to the claim that ,as I saw it , the Jewish people are somehow an ethnically defined group, an ethnic people. I don't accept that they are and gave my reasons ...

Yes, and I was pointing out that your reasons (geography and skin color) are absurd.

From what I know of the different ethnicities that make up the Jewish people they have different ways of expressing/viewing their Jewishness brought about by their different cultural and social interactions in different parts of the world with different cultures they encountered.

Having minor differences in the expression of their common Jewish heritage and culture, such as whether or not to eat kitniyot during Pesach or how many blessings are said over wine at the seder, does not create different ethnic groups. One could argue the opposite: that over the course of thousands of years and thousands of kilometers there are only these small differences speaks to the strength of the Jewish culture which kept them so cohesive in such circumstances.

And erm , the Palestinians are not just " Muslims " The Palestinian in the US is a Palestinian national , of Arab ethnicity that might or might not have US citezenship.

Yes. And the Jewish people are not just "Jews". The Jewish people, of whatever nationality, are of Jewish ethnicity. Thank you. That was my point.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You mean the Jews who won the war against Jordan?
Perhaps Jordan shouldn't have attacked.

You mean the Jewish people that started the war that led to the Jordanian attack ? Hardly surprising considering they were in a mutual defence pact with Egypt when Israel decided to attack Nassers forces.

Moshe Dayan later admitted that around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led up to the 1967 war were initiated by Israeli forces. But if it sits better with you to ignore these facts and blame the Arabs go for it.

lol But the point stands, clearly Jordan shouldn't have attacked. Jordan's tanks were inferior to Israeli tanks and Jordan had no air force to speak of to oppose the Israeli air force, so clearly Jordan would lose the war, so why did Jordan attack? Were they just stupid? Were they suicidal?