[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You spelled "labeling" wrong.

You have an amazing ability to plant your foot solidly in your mouth! If I were you, I'd start doing a bit more research before hitting that reply button and putting yourself in embarrassing situations like the one with the Convention or this one.

There is absolutely NOTHING at all wrong with the way I spelled labelling. In International English (which is the language I write in on these boards), "labeling" the way you spelled it, is entirely incorrect. In America, both spellings are acceptable. Ergo, you have no basis for saying that "labelling" is a misspelling.
Definition of label - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Furthermore, if you're going to attack my writing, maybe you should try to do so with a grammatically correct phrase - "You spelled 'labeling' wrongLY."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I asked you what parties were considered "belligerent" in 242. You didn't answer.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- I asked you who the other "states of belligerency" are referred to in 242?

You have misunderstood the phrase "Termination of all states of belligerency". It makes no sense to ask WHO the states of belligerency are or what parties are considered "belligerent" (a word not even used in the Resolution). "States" in this context does not mean nation state - such that all parties that are belligerent must be terminated!! It means "states" as in conditions."Termination of states of belligerency" means the end of the state of war. Look at the definition of belligerency.
belligerency - Definitions from Dictionary.com

If you want to know what parties are bound by the Resolution, I told you that. I quoted from the Resolution. I explained international law to you. Only STATES are bound. Specifically the Resolutions refers to "States in the area"; the area being the Middle East. Not Hamas in other words because Hamas is not a state in the Middle East and wasn't involved in the states of belligerency that were terminated by the Resolution.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... and this is where your knowledge stops.

Maybe so, but we know that this is a step ahead of where your knowledge stops.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I didn't cite the drafter to show intention. I cited the drafter to clarify that more specific verbiage was requested and rejected. "territories" and "the territories" does not equate to "all territories".

Not THE drafter but A drafter. A civil servant whose opinion the state that employs him didn't support when they had the chance.

But fine, I'm happy for you that you've invented your own approach to the interpretation of international laws. In legal circles we would call what you're doing, looking to external sources which is the banner under which looking at the intention of the parties falls. Maybe one day when your way of doing things becomes international law, we can go back and reconsider Resolution 242 under the eBuddy approach.

For the moment however, we look at the COMMON MEANING of the words without recourse to any external source other than perhaps the rules of grammar and a dictionary. We do that in all the different language versions to synthesise the meaning. This is how legal interpretation works and arguing against that method of interpretation may score you points for ingenuity but it doesn't make Israel's occupation legal.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yet they do in three out of four examples.

They only use "all" once. There are any number of other places where they could have inserted an article and didn't. Where's the article before "threats" or "acts of force"? In any event, as I've said before, you need to make your argument under the laws of interpretation which you haven't done. And you continue to completely ignore the French!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are other parties in breach of 242.

1) The only party you have accused of breach is Hamas who I've already explained is not bound.

2) Syria may ALSO be in breach of the Resolution but that does not make Israel's occupation legal. It just means that Israel and Syria have both done something illegal. On the playground pointing to Johnny and saying, "But he is also naughty," doesn't get you off the hook and that strategy doesn't work at the level of international law either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By maintaining vague language, they are in fact encouraging negotiations.

That may be how it seems to a layman but you are commenting on a rather technical field here.

To me, with my layman hat on, it seems bizarre to apply the interpretation that one American civil servant (whose view his government did not support when it had the opportunity) gives to the Resolution over the statements of 9 STATES who actually signed the Resolution. To me it seems bizarre to ignore the French version that we know many of the states that signed the Resolution relied on and were entirely within their rights to rely on. To me it seems entirely bizarre to argue that without an article, that statement doesn't mean ALL territories. To avoid bizarre outcomes of interpretation and to create some sort of semblance of justice, over thousands of years the laws of interpretation have been developed. I've told you how that plays out and you might not like it, but that's tough luck.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Think carefully about what the consequences would be of Israel being split in two.

Again, you display a patent lack of knowledge about the things that you insist on commenting on. Here is a map of Israel before the 1967 war. If it went back to those boundaries, would it be split in two? No it would not. Honestly eBuddy ... do a little research before replying!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... it doesn't matter if others are in conflict with 242, you're only concerned about Israel.

Yes, I'm only concerned about Israel for the sake of the debate about whether their occupation is illegal.

Let me remind you what this debate is about. You said that Israel is not illegally occupying the Occupied Territories. That is necessarily an argument about Israel exclusively.

Israel still occupies many of the territories that it occupied in the 1967 war. Therefore, under Resolution 242, it is in illegal occupation. Also, under the Geneva Conventions, Israel is forbidden from settling its own people in the occupied territory, it is forbidden from taking resources like water from the territories, it is forbidden from doing any number of things that it continues to do.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- I asked you why when you copy-pasted my copy of the Resolution, you excluded my comment reminding the readers here that the UN has no problem using the word "all" when it wants. You didn't answer. When you hit the "quote" button, it doesn't selectively edit like this. You took pains to do it. Why? I want an answer.

Oh, you want an answer now do you? Do you want some toys to throw? I quoted the original text of the Resolution. Your comments weren't in the original text. Simple. It made no difference either way.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- I asked you what timetable was given in 242. Did it say Israel had to withdraw within 30 years? Did it say "immediately"? You didn't answer.

None was given. As of 23 November 1967, Israel was in illegal occupation. The timetable for compliance is up to Israel. If it wants to continue to break the law for another 50 years, it can stay in those territories. There may or not be consequences.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- You mentioned that they have to show they've withdrawn from a sufficient number of territories. I asked you if it says this. You didn't answer.

No. YOU said that they are only required to withdraw from some territories. I (and almost all other legal scholars) say that it is required to withdraw from all territories. If you want to say that Israel's occupation is legal because it has withdrawn from some territories, then you would need to show which territories it has withdrawn from and make the argument that this is a sufficient number to satisfy the Resolution. Would withdrawal from 5 square feet be sufficient in your opinion? Do you think that is what the Arab states and India and France etc. thought the Resolution meant? Is that what the French Resolution says? No it is not.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You might be out of law school, but it seems you've got a bunch of homework to do yet.

You pushed and pushed for me to tell you what my background was and when I did then all you can do is use that information to insult me. Comparing me to another lawyer not for his skills but for his choice of women, insulting my knowledge and skills etc. Time and time again in this thread, you've shown an utter inability to comprehend basic concepts. Time and time again, you jump on me throwing allegations around and then subsequently having to apologise or be shown to be completely out of line.

I'm pulling out of this argument now because it is pointless. I've shown you how the legal analysis works. I've shown you that there are excellent arguments for the contention that Israel is in illegal occupation of the Occupied Territories and that you cannot say that Israel's occupation is indeed legal under international law. You've admitted that you haven't read the law carefully and that you don't have the background to conduct a technical argument about international law. I suggest therefore that we leave this as an argument between two laypeople with the conclusion that we cannot say for sure that Israel's occupation is legal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

You have an amazing ability to plant your foot solidly in your mouth! If I were you, I'd start doing a bit more research before hitting that reply button and putting yourself in embarrassing situations like the one with the Convention or this one.

I'm tired of "spellcheck" spending most of its time over your responses.

You have misunderstood the phrase "Termination of all states of belligerency". It makes no sense to ask WHO the states of belligerency are or what parties are considered "belligerent" (a word not even used in the Resolution). "States" in this context does not mean nation state - such that all parties that are belligerent must be terminated!! It means "states" as in conditions."Termination of states of belligerency" means the end of the state of war. Look at the definition of belligerency.

There's been nothing, but acts of belligerency since Israel declared statehood. I asked you what states of belligerency they are referring to. I've gotten you to include Syria. It's no longer fun for me when I have to tell you about the trap doors I've left for you and watch you fall through them anyway.

If you want to know what parties are bound by the Resolution, I told you that. I quoted from the Resolution. I explained international law to you. Only STATES are bound. Specifically the Resolutions refers to "States in the area"; the area being the Middle East. Not Hamas in other words because Hamas is not a state in the Middle East and wasn't involved in the states of belligerency that were terminated by the Resolution.

So... you told me it is not referring to nation States, but now only STATES are bound? What STATES then? It seems we're referring to STATES (separate and something you've still not provided me) and conditions of belligerency. Either way, there are breaches. By your selective interpretation, only Israel is guilty. In my interpretation, Israel has complied with International Law to the degree it can without risking national security. Why? Because of belligerency. You, on the other hand continue to make this up as you go. Honestly Troll. To do this and chest-pound some personal legal prowess is pathetic.

So... "all" when used clearly doesn't mean "all", but the lack of "all" clearly means "all". I'm including that statement again because you found it inconvenient to include and address in your reply. You do this a lot by the way. Is this how you approach Law, simply cut out what you don't want to address?

Maybe so, but we know that this is a step ahead of where your knowledge stops.

What we know is some internet schlep is calling your BS to the carpet. Repeatedly.

For the moment however, we look at the COMMON MEANING of the words without recourse to any external source other than perhaps the rules of grammar and a dictionary. We do that in all the different language versions to synthesise the meaning. This is how legal interpretation works and arguing against that method of interpretation may score you points for ingenuity but it doesn't make Israel's occupation legal.

...nor does it make Israel's occupation illegal. They have complied to the letter of the law. You may find this awfully shrewd of them, but they know full well there is no equitable way to enforce 242. Period. There are other STATES referred to in this Resolution that are guilty of non-compliance. The resolution refers to both STATES (you said so yourself) and CONDITIONS of belligerency. In both cases, no matter how want to view it, the breaches are not Israel's exclusively.

They only use "all" once.

They use "every" twice and "all" once clearly showing their ability and desire to use the ever-elusive articles for which you've called. There were requests to include "all". The requests were heard and not included in the verbiage.

There are any number of other places where they could have inserted an article and didn't.

When they do include the articles, you dismiss them. When they don't include the articles, you insert them.

Where's the article before "threats" or "acts of force"?

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".
There are two of them in this SINGLE sentence. One of them referring to ALL "claims" OR "states" of belligerency and the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of "every" STATE. When articles are used, you ignore them. When articles aren't used (regardless of version), you insert them. Is this good legal practice?

In any event, as I've said before, you need to make your argument under the laws of interpretation which you haven't done.

Brother, you've not been able to address the arguments I've made as it is. I wouldn't be calling for more.

And you continue to completely ignore the French!

... and I will continue to ignore the French!!!

1) The only party you have accused of breach is Hamas who I've already explained is not bound.

They are included in "all" conditions of belligerency and refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of EVERY State. What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp? Is it a matter of you truly not understanding or not wanting to see it?

"all" when it is used clearly doesn't mean "all", but the lack of "all" clearly means "all". I get it Troll. Are you actually practicing Law these days? Again, don't answer me. I'm hoping you can find some introspect in there somewhere.

2) Syria may ALSO be in breach of the Resolution but that does not make Israel's occupation legal. It just means that Israel and Syria have both done something illegal. On the playground pointing to Johnny and saying, "But he is also naughty," doesn't get you off the hook and that strategy doesn't work at the level of international law either.

On the playground, you wouldn't ask me to give Johnny back the gun he was waving in my face either.

That may be how it seems to a layman but you are commenting on a rather technical field here.

"technical field"

To me, with my layman hat on, it seems bizarre to apply the interpretation that one American civil servant (whose view his government did not support when it had the opportunity)

Silence is not agreement. Expressing agreement is agreement. The verbiage in the Resolution stands as it is. It was not changed to include "all" in the context you'd like for it to have. The request to include "all" was not granted. Not in the English version and not in the FRENCH version.

gives to the Resolution over the statements of 9 STATES who actually signed the Resolution. To me it seems bizarre to ignore the French version that we know many of the states that signed the Resolution relied on and were entirely within their rights to rely on.

Right. They were confident enough in the sufficient degree of ambiguity.

To me it seems entirely bizarre to argue that without an article, that statement doesn't mean ALL territories.

What's even stranger is to have "all" mean "all" when "all" is not even used and when it is used it doesn't mean "all". To do so in one breath while chest-pounding your resume in the next is even more laughable.

To avoid bizarre outcomes of interpretation and to create some sort of semblance of justice, over thousands of years the laws of interpretation have been developed. I've told you how that plays out and you might not like it, but that's tough luck.

No. What's tough luck is spending fruitless hours working out a Resolution to address violence in the Middle East and hold none of the guilty parties to account for their breach. What's tough luck is expecting justice only for one party while ignoring the responsibilities of the other parties. What's tough luck is the fact that they continue to do it to themselves and render their body wholly ineffectual in the meantime. You've used the word "all" more times than I can count in this thread in order to make your point clear. What's tough luck is the fact that an International Body found it unnecessary to provide as much clarity as some self-professed legal schmo on the internet.

Again, you display a patent lack of knowledge about the things that you insist on commenting on.

Here Troll displays a picture of the "proposed" Israel essentially split in two. People who are bent on dismantling Israel will often show you blown-up pictures of Israel, but one should never forget that we're talking about a country the size of New Jersey. By splitting through the core of this tiny country 2/3rds deep, you are essentially splitting Israel in two. This is a divide and conquer mentality and it is either woefully naive of the parties involved or shrewd as a serpent. I believe the latter.

Yes, I'm only concerned about Israel

Yeah I know. Of course we all remember the thread title; "Palestine and Israel, the neverending story". Troll has taken it upon himself to not only define the debate by his terms, but focus his concern entirely on Israel.

for the sake of the debate about whether their occupation is illegal. Let me remind you what this debate is about.

This particular debate is about Palestine and Israel. We know where your focus is and we're beginning to understand why and it has nothing to do with personal legal prowess. Obviously.

You said that Israel is not illegally occupying the Occupied Territories. That is necessarily an argument about Israel exclusively.

There's a reason why they're occupying territories. There are a host of reasons why this occupation is not illegal and it includes necessity based upon states of belligerency. That's why the verbiage was included in the Resolution. This is not necessarily an argument about Israel exclusively. You'd like to frame it this way, but that wouldn't be the first time you've tried to define issues on your own terms.

Israel still occupies many of the territories that it occupied in the 1967 war.

So they've withdrawn from SOME in spite of states of belligerency. They are in compliance while the others are NOT. Is it getting any clearer for you now?

Therefore, under Resolution 242, it is in illegal occupation.

Wrong. The Resolution was vague in regard to what territories. They weren't this ambiguous out of the concern of forgetting one. This is so ridiculous it hurts. You're suggesting they are no more conscientious about international law than you are in winning some online debate?!?

Also, under the Geneva Conventions, Israel is forbidden from settling its own people in the occupied territory, it is forbidden from taking resources like water from the territories, it is forbidden from doing any number of things that it continues to do.

Acting against Israel while not acting against the other parties in concert is irresponsible. There is no way to apply your interpretation of International Law in an equitable way. Are you ever going to address this?

Oh, you want an answer now do you?

Yeah. I'm tired of you selecting only those issues you feel will bolster your own bias while excluding my statements that make you look like you're in your first year of law school.

I quoted the original text of the Resolution.

No you didn't. You hit the "quote" button, then edited OUT my commentary on the ability of the UN to use articles when they wanted to use articles. It says

Originally Posted by ebuddy

...

You did this because it is contextual proof that you haven't a leg to stand on. You having excluded that comment is proof to me that you lack confidence in your argumentation.

Your comments weren't in the original text. Simple. It made no difference either way.

You took pains to include my name in the alleged quote, then took additional pains to edit out my argument. You can BS yourself Troll. I'm not buyin'. Given this, I'm inclined to believe you have absolutely no legal background whatsoever. None.

None was given. As of 23 November 1967, Israel was in illegal occupation. The timetable for compliance is up to Israel.

Case closed.

No. YOU said that they are only required to withdraw from some territories. I (and almost all other legal scholars) say that it is required to withdraw from all territories. If you want to say that Israel's occupation is legal because it has withdrawn from some territories, then you would need to show which territories it has withdrawn from and make the argument that this is a sufficient number to satisfy the Resolution.

To the degree Israel can comply and maintain sufficient national security in light of the numerous breaches of the "states of belligerency" issue, yes. To require any more of them is irresponsible and bent more in the interest of dismantling Israel than any justice.

Would withdrawal from 5 square feet be sufficient in your opinion?

If at the 6th foot, a suicide bomber is hiding. Yes.

Do you think that is what the Arab states and India and France etc. thought the Resolution meant? Is that what the French Resolution says? No it is not.

If the French Resolution says the same thing as the English version, why continue to rail on about the French version???
Go to the UN transcript of Resolution 242. It says "territory". Why does the official UN transcript not rail on the importance of the French version as much as you? UN Security Council Official Records/transcript of 242.

You pushed and pushed for me to tell you what my background was and when I did then all you can do is use that information to insult me.

You continuously misrepresent the nature of our discourse while trying to tell me how I misinterpret International Law. Allow me to correct you again since it is apparent you not only have a comprehension problem with Law, you have a comprehension problem in simply conversation.
A. You asked me about my legal background.
B. I told you to ask yourself questions regarding your own legal background and at the end of that requested specifically; "Please keep the answers to yourself. You are the one who decided to throw your resume on the table.

We know a great many are in breach of 242. Some will focus only on Israel. Those interested in justice will focus on all parties involved and come to a fair conclusion. Those bent on dismantling Israel politically and geographically, will call to some arbitrary interpretation of Law with focus only on Israel. When "all" is used, it is implied. When it is not used, it is subject to interpretation. The aspects of this Law that are clear, are clearly in my favor. The aspects of Law that are unclear, could be interpreted as supporting your view.

I told you at the beginning that this is an irreconcilable argument. It always will be.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes. It is the way of things.


They are less oppressed in Israel than they are anywhere else in the ME with the exception of maybe Jordan. Maybe. They don't have to be happy with their conditions. They can use their power via their 12 representatives in the Israeli Parliament and tenured professors and teachers throughout Israeli colleges and universities to make a difference. I'd argue they already have. They are among the most prosperous, most free, and most educated of Arabs throughout all the ME.

You are joking, aren't you?

What you said is only the reality for the arabic/islamic israelis living in Israel proper, but not for the palestinians living in the occupied territories, for which the oppression, dispossession and economic, political and military strangulation is harsh reality, much worse than the situation of black people in South-Africa during the apartheit-phase.

The situation of the arabic/islamic israelis, who view themselves as palestinians, and who are viewed by the jewish israelis as palestinians, is also deplorable, as their villages and towns and neighbourhoods receive distinctively less funds than jewish ones, and because of legal discriminations that are constructed to prevent an expansion of arabic villages and towns, while jewish ones can do so, and because of the numerous confiscations of arabic land, and because of the disadvantages arabs have because they have no access to support that only those receive that served in the military...

There is a clear discrimination and legal/economic hardship on islamic/arabic israelis in Israel, but at least they have the ability to vote, to put up candidates and to use their free-speech-right to raise their voice, and they are not subject to a military oppression, so compared to the situation of the palestinians in the occupied territories, it's nearly heaven.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The settler movement tries to give the Jews in the ME the right to worship as they choose. Since it belonged to them in ancient times and they've fought numerous wars to hold on to it, they are not only the original owners, they are the current owners and they've amassed an impressive amount of weaponry to ensure it stays that way.

Huh? Are israeli settlers land-worshippers and over two thousand years old?

If not, then they have far less rights to the land than the palestinians who legally owned it until they were illegaly expropriated/dispossessed and driven off of their land to make room for israeli settlers.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My positions are rational and backed by international law. Yes. Unless of course, you have some arbitrary law to the contrary? Certainly, nothing you've provided in this thread contradicts my position.

Let's see the various positions and developments:

Your and Israel's argument is that the occupied territories, ie. Sinai, Gaza, Westbank, Golan-heights and the sheeba-farms were not really occupied, because they were not part of a souvereign state. Those were the occupied territories after the 67-war, so to study the legality and the validity of your claim that Israel was and is not breaching international law, that would be a good starting-point:

1. Your and Israel's argument already falls flat for Sinai, Golan, and sheeba-farms, all of these now or once occupied territories belonged and belong to souvereign states, namely Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

Despite the obvious illegality of the occupation of these territories, Israel supported the colonising of these by israeli settlers.

Israel gave Sinai back to Egypt in 1978 and withdrew its settlers and army.

2. But what about the other occupied territories? Westbank, Gaza and Jerusalem didn't belong legally to a souvereign state before Israel captured these. Westbank and East-Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan and Gaza was occupied by Egypt, and West-Jerusalem was occupied by Israel, before the 67-war.

So, are Israel and you right in saying that capturing territories that were already occupied, in the course of a preemptive/defensive war, were internationally legal and did and does not represent a new occupation?

It wouldn't have been a new occupation, if Israel had chosen to annex Gaza, Westbank and East-Jerusalem, and given the palestinians living there full rights as citizens of Israel. But that didn't happen, instead Israel chose to impose a military regime upon these territories and to support a settler-movement by driving out palestinians from their land that they legally own, in order to make room for israeli settlements.

Military regime, denial of equal rights for palestinians, expropriation and confiscation of land privately owned by palestinians... is what defines the legal status of Gaza, Westbank as being occupied territories.

Normally, that should already suffice, but there is another angle to the topic, an angle which also covers East-Jerusalem, and that one starts with the british mandate over Palestine:

3. During the british mandate over Palestine the population was majorly made up by arabs, with about 90%+ and less than 10% of jews. In the course of the decades, through immigration of jews, the rate rised to about 33% of the total palestinian population. These jews owned legally about 7% of the land that makes up Israel today, while the arabs owned legally about 50% of Palestine, the rest was socalled crown-land, state-land owned by the british colonial regime.
Usually arabic point of views cite a higher percentage of arabic ownership, more like 90% of Palestine, but that shouldn't play much of a difference.

The international community wanted to create a jewish homeland in parts of Palestine, because of the guilt they felt after the holocaust that jews had to go through in parts of Europe that Germany had control over, and because of the plight of the jews in the concentration- and other refuggee-camps, that longed for a safe haven.

Britain already promised a jewish homeland in parts of Palestine, long before the international community did so. Britain thought, in a strange variant of antisemitism, that jews were the ones controlling the financial and economical power in the world, and that therefore it would be a good decision to win the sympathy and alliance of the jews by helping them to establish their national dream, on the condition that there would be no prejudice against the civil and religious rights of the non-jewish-population.

After a lot of turmoil, after the holocaust and after ww2, Britain decided to let the newly created UN to decide what should happen with Palestine. The UN decided and recognized that there were two national forces in Palestine, the arab and the zionist one, and proposed therefore the partition of Palestine into a jewish and arabic part with the UNGA resolution 181.

The resolution proposed that the "33% jews" should receive 55% of the land in Palestine for their jewish state, in order to leave room for the expected immigration-waves of jews coming from the diaspora, espescially those that survived the holocaust, and the arabs of Palestine should receive the rest, while 36% of the palestinian arabs would have to live as a minority in the jewish state, so that noone is forced to leave his privately owned homes.

The zionists accepted the partition-plan and by this making the way free for the international legitimation and recognisement of a jewish state, the modern state of Israel, but always with the expectation that they would use the state of Israel as a starting point to expand until Greater Israel was established.

The palestinian arabs and also the arabs in the surrounding arabic countries rejected the partition and proposed instead that a secular undivided state be created in Palestine, granting equal rights to jews, christians and muslims alike, and tried to call the ICJ to examine if the UNGA has authority to call for partition, but the UNGA narrowly defeated the proposal to call the ICJ.

So, the UN decided that both people, the jews and the palestinian arabs were people with nationalities that have the basic right to self-deterimination. The fact that the leaders of the palestinian arabs rejected to form a state of their own that would grant them 45% of the land between mediterannean sea and Jordan-river, where 64% of their people could excercise their right to self-determination, does not mean that the right vanishes. It means only that the right waits until another leadership is ready to embrace that right in the name of their people..

That time has already come in 1987 and espescially in 1988, one year after the first intifada, when the PLO decided to follow the urgent wish of the palestinian people to have finally a state of their own.

They could have insisted on the 45% land that the UN allocated to the palestinian people, but they didn't do it, instead they relied on UNSC-decision 242 to form a state in 22% of the land, namely in the land that Israel now keeps occupied illegaly, with East-Jerusalem as its capital.

Now that the palestinians want to excercise their right to selfdetermination, occupation is reality there where Israel tries to suppress that self-determination, and since palestinians in East-Jerusalem are legally owning their land and homes there and are not israeli citizens, Israel will have to withdraw from there, too.

So, there are two forms of occupation: the territory-occupation, that is defined as the territories that got occupied after the 67-war, and the occupation/oppression of palestinian nationality and right to self-determination, they are not synonym, eventhough they mostly overlap.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

ethnic cleansing; the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration.

With over 1,700,000 Palestinians currently living in Israel and multiplying like rabbits, 12 representatives in the Israeli Parliament, tenured professors and teachers teaching throughout Israeli colleges and universities, and over 200,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem alone, you've proven only that you haven't a clue what ethnic cleansing is.

When you've wrapped your mind around exactly what ethnic cleansing is, we can then address your other numerous misinterpretations such as International Law.

The forced emmigration of millions of palestinians out of the occupied territory, so that Israel can become "Greater-Israel"-light would definitely and rightfully be called ethnic cleansing, no matter how many arabic/islamic israelis there are in Israel, don't you think?

Or do you think, something can only be called ethnic cleansing, if it was done in a 100% way?


But what I find quite disturbing, but also amusing, is not only that you incorrectly call non-jewish israelis palestinians, but also that the number you cite for the arabic/muslim israelis seems to grow with your postings: Why do you think there are now 1,700,000 arabic/islamic israelis in Israel?

That is provable wrong: According to Israel's own 2006-statistics, there are 1,200,000 arabic/muslim israelis with israeli citizenship and voting-rights, and there are 200,000 palestinians living in East-Jerusalem with permanent residentship but with no voting-rights. So even if you decided to dishonestly add these numbers up, it would not amount to your posted number.

That's strange, not to speak of your "multiplying like rabbits"-slur.

Taliesin

[Hawkeye_a]

*meh nevermind...same old rant to no avail*

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm tired of "spellcheck" spending most of its time over your responses.

I would find it strange that your spellcheck had a problem with "labelling" considering it's correct in both US and International English but so be it. Instead of considering that perhaps I wasn't writing US English, your arrogance overwhelmed you and you jumped in to accuse me of not knowing how to spell. Wound up making a complete and utter idiot of yourself by not only falsely accusing me but making the accusation with a phrase that was grammatically incorrect. If you weren't such an arrogant tosser, it might almost be funny reading your posts.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I asked you what states of belligerency they are referring to.

No you did not ask WHAT the states of belligerency are, you asked "WHO" the other states of belligerency were. A completely idiotic question revealing your inability to read and comprehend. I was polite the first time I pointed this error out.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... you told me it is not referring to nation States, but now only STATES are bound? What STATES then?

I told you that "states of belligerency" does not refer to nation states. I told you that "every state in the area" referred to nation states. Two different phrases with two different meanings. Again, you show a fundamental inability to read and comprehend that the same word can mean two different things in two different phrases. All states in the area are bound. I've told you that umpteen times.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When they do include the articles, you dismiss them. When they don't include the articles, you insert them.

Nonsense. I haven't dismissed any article ever. I agree that "all claims" means all of them and "every state" means every one of them.

And we are both equally guilty of adding articles as you put it - you add "some" and I add "all". You say "Dogs must be kept on leads near ponds in the park," means all dogs must be kept on leads near some ponds - necessitating the addition of "all" and "some". I say it means all dogs must be kept on leads near all ponds in the park - necessitating the addition of all.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They are included in "all" conditions of belligerency and refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of EVERY State. What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp? Is it a matter of you truly not understanding or not wanting to see it?

Again, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of international law and arrogantly refuse to learn about it. UN Resolutions apply to MEMBER STATES. Hamas is not a member state of the United Nations. The "states of belligerency" that are referred to are specifically the acts of war committed during the 1967 Middle East War. Hamas wasn't formed until 20 years after that war so patently the states of belligerency do not refer to anything Hamas did.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"technical field"

Yes, interpretation of law is a technical field.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Here Troll displays a picture of the "proposed" Israel essentially split in two.

Oh now it is "essentially" split in two. You were wrong eBuddy. Once again, you made a fundamental error claiming that implementing Resolution 242 would mean splitting Israel in two. And instead of simply admitting that you were wrong, you change the words a little and arrogantly persist. I'm not bent on dismantling Israel at all. I think it was a viable state within the '48 borders and I certainly think it was a viable state within the '67 borders. I see no problem in requiring that Israel go back to those, with an arrangement in place for partitioning Jerusalem. And it isn't a picture of the PROPOSED Israel. It is a picture of the ACTUAL Israel before the 1967 war - which you have understood had you read the title of the map in big letters in the left-hand top corner! Again, arrogance coupled with inability to read.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why does the official UN transcript not rail on the importance of the French version as much as you?

There's that foot in your mouth again. Para 111 from your link: "We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I told you at the beginning that this is an irreconcilable argument. It always will be.

The argument as to whether the earth is round or flat will always be irreconcilable too. Doesn't mean the earth is flat.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In my interpretation, Israel has complied with International Law to the degree it can without risking national security.

Except that your interpretation is not a legal interpretation and mine is.

You admit that Israel has not complied fully but you claim a justification. Not a legally recognised justification. You completely ignore the law and talk about practicalities and common sense and what is "irresponsible". I don't believe that it is irresponsible to make Israel go back to it's 1967 borders and I don't believe that it is impractical either. But that is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Israel's occupation is illegal. With your deep knowledge of Resolution 242, you must have read the preamble which says "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," and with your knowledge of international law you must know all about that principle. You cannot acquire territory by conquest! That is at the very core of what this Resolution is about. Israel has no valid claim to any territory that it has acquired by war. So at some point it will have to go back to where it came from no matter how impractical and irresponsible and lacking in common sense you might think that is. I am actually quite lenient in my interpretation in not demanding that Israel go back to it's '48 borders. Of course, you have in the past completely denied that this principle even exists.

With Simey, I have had many interesting legal debates because he too is a lawyer and understands the principles and makes legal arguments with none of the arrogance that you display. I've also had interesting legal debates with other people who don't have a legal background but look up points when they're made and are prepared to learn. I don't expect you to have the same legal background that I do and I wouldn't have mentioned it except for the fact that you kept questioning my legal knowledge. I have tried to explain the law to you but you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend and insist on insulting me rather than learning something. You admit that you have zero legal background but you have the arrogance to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about - even when it's made patently clear that you yourself haven't even read the opening words of certain documents you refer to.

You even accuse me of lying about my background. I don't need to take this from you. You admit to having no background in the field you're trying to talk about, you admit to making basic errors. I think we will all bear that in mind when reading what you have to say.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

No you did not ask WHAT the states of belligerency are, you asked "WHO" the other states of belligerency were. A completely idiotic question revealing your inability to read and comprehend. I was polite the first time I pointed this error out.

Why playing stupid here Troll? You're so busy trying to catch some type of error on my part that you don't even know what you're arguing at this point.

Belligerency; the position or status as a belligerent; state of being actually engaged in war.

Who is engaged in war Troll? Who are the belligerent "people", "states", "entities" (whatever you want to call them) that are creating the condition of belligerency? Belligerency is not a weather condition right? Is it a volcanic eruption? No. There are entities behind belligerency. Who is 242 referring to?

I told you that "states of belligerency" does not refer to nation states. I told you that "every state in the area" referred to nation states.

Is belligerency a weather condition?
Unless belligerency is a weather condition, there must be people behind it right? Who are those people Troll?

Two different phrases with two different meanings. Again, you show a fundamental inability to read and comprehend that the same word can mean two different things in two different phrases. All states in the area are bound. I've told you that umpteen times.

So... not just Israel right?

Nonsense. I haven't dismissed any article ever. I agree that "all claims" means all of them and "every state" means every one of them.

Good. So then you understand how biased you've been throughout this entire thread.

Again, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of international law and arrogantly refuse to learn about it. UN Resolutions apply to MEMBER STATES. Hamas is not a member state of the United Nations. The "states of belligerency" that are referred to are specifically the acts of war committed during the 1967 Middle East War. Hamas wasn't formed until 20 years after that war so patently the states of belligerency do not refer to anything Hamas did.

That's a good point. In fact, can you show me where the Palestinians are referred to in 242? *trap door, be careful.

Yes, interpretation of law is a technical field.

Oh now it is "essentially" split in two. You were wrong eBuddy. Once again, you made a fundamental error claiming that implementing Resolution 242 would mean splitting Israel in two. And instead of simply admitting that you were wrong, you change the words a little and arrogantly persist. I'm not bent on dismantling Israel at all. I think it was a viable state within the '48 borders and I certainly think it was a viable state within the '67 borders. I see no problem in requiring that Israel go back to those, with an arrangement in place for partitioning Jerusalem. And it isn't a picture of the PROPOSED Israel. It is a picture of the ACTUAL Israel before the 1967 war - which you have understood had you read the title of the map in big letters in the left-hand top corner!

Yeah, ESSENTIALLY split in two. In most cases you're leaving them with what... less than 15 miles of territory? Split in two. Again, you're busy trying to catch errors, but at the end of the day you're just playing stupid. Hell, it wasn't until 1993 that the PLO even accepted the terms of 242. What had they been doing? Failing to acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Particularly, Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from ALL threats or acts of force. Of course though in your opinion "all" doesn't include acts of belligerency caused by non-member nation states right? I mean, regardless of the fact that you've taken great pains to claim this article does not mention states, it only adheres to MEMBER STATES, not the CONDITION OF WAR? Really, what a convenient argument Troll. Gosh, it doesn't say Israel has to give Palestine a damned thing, but you've managed to arbitrarily include them in that argument now haven't you?

Also, you imply that Israel must withdraw before article (ii) comes into play. Is this so? Please answer the questions.

[b]There's that foot in your mouth again. Para 111 from your link: "We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories".

Funny. You got to 111, but did you happen to get to 142? You've said that "negotiation" was not an intention of 242. Paragraph 142; The Security Council resolution defines the terms of reference of the special representative of the Secretary-General satisfactorily. He is to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions of the resolution; in other words, he is to participate in the negotiations and help to solve the problem.
So... when "negotiation" is used, it does not mean negotiation.

Citing the same ambiguous text over and over again does not make it any less ambiguous. They could've easily added the word "all". They could've easily used "articles" that they used in the sentences prior and sentences after especially when having been called to do so. I really couldn't give a rat's ass how the Syrian delegate framed 242 when it is patently obvious they are involved in the "state of belligerency".

The argument as to whether the earth is round or flat will always be irreconcilable too.

Right. In arguments like this one you will insist the earth is flat regardless of your self-professed legal prowess and intellectual chest-pounding, you're wrong.

Except that your interpretation is not a legal interpretation and mine is.

Your interpretation is founded on a biased focus on Israel. Your interpretation is founded upon the ability to see only one side of an argument and an inability to comprehend complexity.

Troll's legal interpretation; "All" means all when it is not used, but clearly does not mean "all" when it is used. Your legal interpretation is a joke.

You admit that Israel has not complied fully but you claim a justification.

No. Is this how you practice Law Troll? Not only have I said Israel has complied, but I've said Israel has complied to THE VERY LETTER OF THE LAW. In fact, they've withdrawn from over 90% of "the territories". What have the other "belligerency's" done? You guessed it. Continue on in direct conflict with 242.

Not a legally recognised justification. You completely ignore the law and talk about practicalities and common sense and what is "irresponsible". I don't believe that it is irresponsible to make Israel go back to it's 1967 borders and I don't believe that it is impractical either.

What you believe is not relevant. What you believe is not practical nor applicable here. What you "believe" above is what your interpretation of 242 is founded upon and comprises the lion's share of your focus.

But that is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Israel's occupation is illegal. With your deep knowledge of Resolution 242, you must have read the preamble which says "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,"

Right and it does not say through war. You claim to understand Law yet know nothing about the issue's entirety. It was a defensive war. They did not attack specifically to acquire more territory. Words. Pay attention to them.

and with your knowledge of international law you must know all about that principle. You cannot acquire territory by conquest!

You cannot use conquest to acquire territory. Meaning, I cannot attack you to take your territory.

That is at the very core of what this Resolution is about. Israel has no valid claim to any territory that it has acquired by war. So at some point it will have to go back to where it came from no matter how impractical and irresponsible and lacking in common sense you might think that is. I am actually quite lenient in my interpretation in not demanding that Israel go back to it's '48 borders. Of course, you have in the past completely denied that this principle even exists.

The core of this Resolution is about easing tensions in the Middle East. Israeli withdrawal from territory is, but one part of the Resolution. There is no equitable way to enforce your interpretation of Law.

With Simey, I have had many interesting legal debates because he too is a lawyer and understands the principles and makes legal arguments with none of the arrogance that you display.

I'm arrogant and aggressive because I know what is at play here and I don't like it. I know exactly what your intentions are and I don't like them. They are not founded in any legal interest nor are they founded or bolstered by International Law.

I've also had interesting legal debates with other people who don't have a legal background but look up points when they're made and are prepared to learn. I don't expect you to have the same legal background that I do and I wouldn't have mentioned it except for the fact that you kept questioning my legal knowledge.

WRONG!!! I advised you to ASK YOURSELF AND SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU NOT TO TELL ME! You wonder why I question your comprehension skills? Can you be any thicker? You want me to learn from you?!?

Learn medicine from Dr. Jekyll? No thanks.

I have tried to explain the law to you but you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend and insist on insulting me rather than learning something. You admit that you have zero legal background but you have the arrogance to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about - even when it's made patently clear that you yourself haven't even read the opening words of certain documents you refer to.

That's the truly ironic thing about this debate Troll. I don't need a lick of legal background to understand your bias. I don't need a degree in Law to see the fallacy in your arguments. I submit our entire exchange as proof that you'd like to argue about everything and anything except the issue at hand. You've dodged and weaved and excluded my comments and have eluded those questions you find inconvenient to the extent that I don't even believe you have any legal credential. Not one.

You even accuse me of lying about my background. I don't need to take this from you. You admit to having no background in the field you're trying to talk about, you admit to making basic errors. I think we will all bear that in mind when reading what you have to say.

Good. When you have the time, answer some questions;

- Knowing that belligerency is not a weather condition, but the condition caused by human parties, entities, and peoples; what parties, peoples, and entities are called to end the conditions of belligerence in 242?

- Why when "all" is used it does not mean all, but when "all" isn't used it means "all"?

- You've admitted that no timetable was given for Israel's withdrawal, but claim they are in conflict with 242. How can that be? If Israel has withdrawn from over 90% of "the territories" in spite of the acts of belligerency against her, how is Israel in conflict with 242?

- Would you let the person test-driving the car you're trying to sell him have the title before he pays you?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's a good point. In fact, can you show me where the Palestinians are referred to in 242? *trap door, be careful.

The Palestinians are not referred to, eBuddy. They aren't a state that fought in the 1967 war! As much as you say that I have an agenda, you have an agenda. You're not even trying to make a legal argument. You don't think that Israel should have to leave the Occupied Territories and you'll say whatever the hell you want to justify that.

I have far more respect for people who say, "Yes Israel's occupation is illegal but Israel cannot comply with the law because ..." than with people who skirt around the issue. I myself don't argue to enforce the letter of the law. I myself think that Israel should get a little more than the '48 borders. But I recognise that that has to be negotiated because strictly speaking, Israel is not entitled to anything more. Israel's occupation is illegal just as South Africa's occupation of Namibia was illegal. Same legal principles.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Funny. You got to 111, but did you happen to get to 142?

I don't have the time to explain each of the provisions to you in depth but again you fundamentally misunderstand what you're reading. Paragraph 142 deals with the Sec General's special representative to the Middle East. The negotiations referred to are those the Special Rep will engage in in relation to sundry questions relating to the Middle East. It does not have anything to do with a negotiated implementation of the Resolution. Israel cannot negotiate implementation of the Resolution. It must comply.

Glad to see though that you concede that the French WAS equally important and that it wasn't me just making this up.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not only have I said Israel has complied, but I've said Israel has complied to THE VERY LETTER OF THE LAW.

You said it has complied to the letter of the law "to the degree it can". Why did you add the bolded part?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In fact, they've withdrawn from over 90% of "the territories".

They have not ended the occupation of those parts. But then I guess you don't understand what the difference is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right and it does not say through war.

Again, you show a complete inability to read. "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." How can you say it does not say through war when the very word war is used? It doesn't say "offensive war only" or "war aimed at acquiring territory". It says "war". You cannot acquire territory by fighting a war with another state - irrespective of whether you're the goody or the baddy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You cannot use conquest to acquire territory. Meaning, I cannot attack you to take your territory.

No, meaning exactly what it says that it is inadmissible to acquire territory through war.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Knowing that belligerency is not a weather condition, but the condition caused by human parties, entities, and peoples; what parties, peoples, and entities are called to end the conditions of belligerence in 242?

I have answered every one of your questions numerous times.

As I have said over and over and over again. The states of belligerency are the acts of war committed on or before 22 November 1967. And the parties called on to stop are those STATES IN THE AREA committing the acts of war.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Why when "all" is used it does not mean all, but when "all" isn't used it means "all"?

As I have said over and over again, I never said that all doesn't mean all. Every time the word "all" is used, it means all. I truly cannot believe that you cannot grasp the issue after having it explained to you over and over and over again.

I can answer your question with a question. Why when "some" isn't used does it mean "some"?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- You've admitted that no timetable was given for Israel's withdrawal, but claim they are in conflict with 242. How can that be? If Israel has withdrawn from over 90% of "the territories" in spite of the acts of belligerency against her, how is Israel in conflict with 242?

It's called "breach" eBuddy not "conflict". You see what's frustrating - a guy who tries to make a legal argument (Israel is not illegally occupying the occupied territories) but he doesn't have a clue about law and has the arrogance to insult other people's knowledge.

Israel is in breach of 242 because it has not withdrawn from the territories that it occupied during the 1967 war. 40 years after Resolution 242 was passed, Israel has still not withdrawn from all of the territories. It must withdraw from all territories because that is what Resolution 242 means when it is interpreted in accordance with the rules of legal interpretation (which you cannot comment on because you have no knowledge of the rules and refuse to learn). The Resolution itself is premised on a basic tenet of international law that a country cannot acquire territory through war - which is not restricted to an offensive war but applies to "war", any war. That principle is also ensconced in the Geneva Conventions which, inter alia, set out the rules that apply to a country in occupation - rules that Israel breaks on a daily basis.

Israel's occupation is illegal because it is breach of UN Resolutions like Resolution 242, the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Would you let the person test-driving the car you're trying to sell him have the title before he pays you?

No. But your question has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. You're acting like being found to be in breach of the law is a contract negotiation. It isn't. This is a situation of a breach of LAW. Israel has been told to do x. It is not in a position to negotiate!

Let me try to help you understand the difference between a crime and a contract. Imagine you build a garage onto your house. You build your garage slightly over the building line so that it partially obstructs the sidewalk. You get a summons to appear in court and the Judge tells you that your garage is illegal and that you must break it down. The minute you walk out of that courtroom, you are in breach of the law and the only way you can remedy your breach is to knock the garage down. Arguing that Mr. Jones next door's pool is over the building line doesn't make your garage legal. Nor would it make a difference if in 20 years' time, Mrs. Smith over the road also built her own garage over the sidewalk. YOUR garage is still illegal.

Similarly, the minute that resolution was passed, Israel was in breach. If the other parties are in breach (and you haven't showed that they are) then that is irrelevant. The fact is that Israel's garage is blocking the sidewalk 40 years after it was told to knock it down.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

WRONG!!! I advised you to ASK YOURSELF AND SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU NOT TO TELL ME!

You really have a comprehension problem. I said that you forced me to tell you what my qualifications were by continuously challenging my knowledge of the law. If you keep telling me that I have never read the documents and don't know a thing about the law, of course I'm forced to explain my knowledge. I can't help it if that embarassed you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

The Palestinians are not referred to, eBuddy.

The Palestinians are not referred to in 242. I rest my case your honor, no further questions. Strange, 242 would be used in a thread; "Palestine and Israel, the never-ending story" when Palestine is not referred to in 242.

I have far more respect for people who say, "Yes Israel's occupation is illegal but Israel cannot comply with the law because ..." than with people who skirt around the issue. I myself don't argue to enforce the letter of the law. I myself think that Israel should get a little more than the '48 borders.

Has this always been your view or is it softening in the realization that we're calling for the essential splitting of Israel (the size of New Jersey) in two? Remember the "splitting in two" comment I made that you railed on; IT'S NOT SPLIT IN TWO, THEY'LL STILL GET 9 MILES OF TERRITORY!!!

It does not have anything to do with a negotiated implementation of the Resolution. Israel cannot negotiate implementation of the Resolution. It must comply.

Having withdrawn from "territories" as stated and with no timetable given, they are in compliance to the very letter of the law.

You said it has complied to the letter of the law "to the degree it can". Why did you add the bolded part?

I'll explain it the exact same way I did before; In my interpretation, Israel has complied with International Law to the degree it can without risking national security. Why? Because of belligerency.

Why are you asking questions I've already answered? If there are belligerent entities calling for the destruction of your country, the last thing you'd want to do is leave your country vulnerable to a geographical split down the middle, opening new borders to the hostilities of the other belligerent parties. It makes no sense to hold Israel exclusively to account, leaving itself vulnerable to other parties in breach of 242. Period. This is why no timetable was given, no territories specified, and no action taken.

Again, you show a complete inability to read. "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." How can you say it does not say through war when the very word war is used? It doesn't say "offensive war only" or "war aimed at acquiring territory". It says "war". You cannot acquire territory by fighting a war with another state - irrespective of whether you're the goody or the baddy.

No timetable was given, no territories specified, and no action has been taken because it is impossible to apply your interpretation of Law in an equitable fashion.

As I have said over and over and over again. The states of belligerency are the acts of war committed on or before 22 November 1967. And the parties called on to stop are those STATES IN THE AREA committing the acts of war.

I asked you who the STATES IN THE AREA are.

As I have said over and over again, I never said that all doesn't mean all. Every time the word "all" is used, it means all.

"states" used in context of "all states of belligerency" is a call against conditions of military aggression. You claim this excludes Hamas because they are not a State. You're all over the place. Even though you're calling on 242 as a mandate for Israeli withdrawal when the borders were nothing more than cease-fire lines in the first place. You'll recall a significant part of the problem was the refusal to acknowledge a State of Israel or any official border thereof. They were not secure borders in any sense of the term. This is why 242 does not refer to them as pre-67' or the like. Those borders were indefensible. You are interpreting 242 as you see fit. Period.

I can answer your question with a question. Why when "some" isn't used does it mean "some"?
It's called "breach" eBuddy not "conflict". You see what's frustrating - a guy who tries to make a legal argument (Israel is not illegally occupying the occupied territories) but he doesn't have a clue about law and has the arrogance to insult other people's knowledge.

What's frustrating to me is when someone chest-pounds some personal legal prowess by throwing his resume on the table of the opinionated and bolstering his personal agendas under the guise of Law. You do so with no interest in the integrity of Law, blatant disregard for Law, exclusionary rhetoric regarding entities you're partial to and rhetoric of exclusivity regarding entities you find distasteful. You define Law by your arbitrary interpretation and claim some degree of accuracy in so-doing. I told you to ask yourself about your legal background because I want you to embrace a modicum of introspect. I want you to see that your conclusions here are not founded in Law, rather a personal desire and a woeful bias. To question someone's legal background while chest-pounding your own in one breath and in the other claiming "Hamas" (and other antagonists covered under "all belligerencies", especially when taking into account their connection to STATES IN THE AREA) is not to be held to account under 242; stating unabashedly that your concern is only Israel is pathetic. It's not enough for me to tell you this, I was hoping you'd come to this conclusion on your own.

Israel is in breach of 242 because it has not withdrawn from the territories that it occupied during the 1967 war. 40 years after Resolution 242 was passed, Israel has still not withdrawn from all of the territories. It must withdraw from all territories because that is what Resolution 242 means when it is interpreted in accordance with the rules of legal interpretation (which you cannot comment on because you have no knowledge of the rules and refuse to learn).

Resolution 242 calls for the recognition of Israel's right to exist, an end to the state of war maintained by the Arab world against Israel and secure and recognized boundaries for Israel. 242 does NOT require Israel to return to the non-secure borders of pre-1967. When 242 is not interpreted in the interest of Law, but a personal conviction it is no longer sensible to claim some legal authority. You're opinionated and it has nothing to do with an interest in Law nor any legal credential.

The Resolution itself is premised on a basic tenet of international law that a country cannot acquire territory through war - which is not restricted to an offensive war but applies to "war", any war. That principle is also ensconced in the Geneva Conventions which, inter alia, set out the rules that apply to a country in occupation - rules that Israel breaks on a daily basis.

What country is in occupation? You'll not have much luck recovering the bag of marijuana the police officer took from you, regardless of whether or not he'd been found to occasionally smoke it. At least not in the court of law.

Israel's occupation is illegal because it is breach of UN Resolutions like Resolution 242, the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.

You're making this up as you go along. Worse, you're not very good at it. Do you happen to remember anything about secure borders? Anything like that at all? *trap door.

You can't just keep going back and forth to suite your fancy. At some point, there must be a cogent and consistent argument. You may find it, but I'm less optimistic now than ever.

242 gives no timetable and does not specify "what" territories. Israel has been withdrawing from "territories" (as the very letter of the law states), yet states of belligerency continue to exist. The only ones in breach of 242 are those entities who've not ceased the states of belligerency.

No. But your question has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. You're acting like being found to be in breach of the law is a contract negotiation. It isn't. This is a situation of a breach of LAW. Israel has been told to do x. It is not in a position to negotiate!

Many have been told to do x. Israel is in compliance with the terms of x, others are not. You'll not list them, but what can I say? Some lawyers are more opinionated and stubborn than others regardless of the integrity of Law.

Let me try to help you understand the difference between a crime and a contract. Imagine you build a garage onto your house. You build your garage slightly over the building line so that it partially obstructs the sidewalk. You get a summons to appear in court and the Judge tells you that your garage is illegal and that you must break it down. The minute you walk out of that courtroom, you are in breach of the law and the only way you can remedy your breach is to knock the garage down.

Wrong. The only way I CAN walk out of that courtroom at all is if there is a timetable within which I am to comply with the terms of the ruling in this example. You knew this right? I mean, tell me this internet schlep is not telling a lawyer how law works. This example is proof to me that you're not formulating your simpleton arguments within any legal framework.

Arguing that Mr. Jones next door's pool is over the building line doesn't make your garage legal. Nor would it make a difference if in 20 years' time, Mrs. Smith over the road also built her own garage over the sidewalk. YOUR garage is still illegal.

These regulations are generally imposed through green-space laws and lot lines. Do any of the parties involved have the lot lines displayed for exhibition? Are they well-documented? We're going to need proof that in fact my garage exceeds my lot line. Otherwise, I'll not be tearing down a damned thing your honor and if you seek to impose some arbitrary ruling against me simply because I'm Jewish, your days on that bench are numbered.

Similarly, the minute that resolution was passed, Israel was in breach. If the other parties are in breach (and you haven't showed that they are) then that is irrelevant. The fact is that Israel's garage is blocking the sidewalk 40 years after it was told to knock it down.

A. Israel was never told to knock it down. (though your verbiage is telling. Perhaps they should invest in large yachts eh?)
B. The lot lines were not established nor recognized.
C. No timetable was given either way.
D. If the ruling relies on factors acting in concert and implies negotiation throughout, they should generally act in concert. You cannot hold only one party to account for alleged breaches based on your arbitrary, opinionated, and biased presuppositions in an attempt to "customer-fit" law to your fancy.

You really have a comprehension problem. I said that you forced me to tell you what my qualifications were by continuously challenging my knowledge of the law.

That's not what you said. What you said was;

Originally Posted by Troll

... except for the fact that you kept questioning my legal knowledge.

I "questioned" your legal background to encourage introspect and said as much. Face it, you wanted to throw your resume on the table in an attempt to shut me down. Instead, it only bolstered my suspicions and affirmed my argument. This would not be the first time a lawyer has elevated his own interests over the integrity of Law. It happens all the time.

You see, I don't believe legal credentials supersede personal conviction. If I were faced with losing all of my possessions in a hostile divorce situation, I would not seek the counsel of a woman's rights activist who happens to also have a degree in Law. To deny human nature is to ignore a nagging common sense.

If you keep telling me that I have never read the documents and don't know a thing about the law, of course I'm forced to explain my knowledge. I can't help it if that embarrassed you.

To watch you chest-pound legal background while failing to address the fundamental issues at hand in this debate up to and including the drafting and application of Law, has me more embarrassed for you than anything else.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Has this always been your view or is it softening in the realization that we're calling for the essential splitting of Israel (the size of New Jersey) in two? Remember the "splitting in two" comment I made that you railed on; IT'S NOT SPLIT IN TWO, THEY'LL STILL GET 9 MILES OF TERRITORY!!!

Yes, I remember it. You said that if Resolution 242 were implemented, that would lead to Israel being split in two. I showed you that you were talking crap because Resolution 242 said Israel had to go back to the 1967 borders when Israel was not split in two.

You then changed your argument to say that it was effectively split in two which is also crap. Before 1967, Israel was a single contiguous territory and viable state. It was bigger than it had been when set up in 1948. That extra lebensraum had come at the expense of Palestinians.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll explain it the exact same way I did before; [i]In my interpretation, Israel has complied with International Law to the degree it can without risking national security.

Your English is clearly not good enough to understand what you're writing. "To the degree it can," is a qualification of the statement so "to the letter of the law" is inappropriate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If there are belligerent entities calling for the destruction of your country...

After this has been explained to you numerous times, you still refer to "belligerent entities". There is no reference to belligerent entities in 242. You've been asking the question WHO the belligerent entities are since the start proving that you are incapable of reading English. I've told you over and over that "states of belligerency" refers to conditions not to entities or people. I can only think that you refuse to understand.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"states" used in context of "all states of belligerency" is a call against conditions of military aggression. You claim this excludes Hamas because they are not a State.

This is really not difficult to understand eBuddy. It's simple English. I'll quote what I've already written:

"I told you that "states of belligerency" does not refer to nation states. I told you that "every state in the area" referred to nation states. Two different phrases with two different meanings." Hamas is not bound because it is not a "state in the area". It is also not a member of the UN and therefore not bound by UN Resolutions. The phrase you quoted has nothing to do with who is bound by the Resolution.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I asked you who the STATES IN THE AREA are.

Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and any other state in the Middle East that was involved in acts of belligerency as at 22 November 1967. I assume you know this though so your attempts at trapping me are juvenile. Make your point.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It makes no sense to hold Israel exclusively to account, leaving itself vulnerable to other parties in breach of 242.

Israel was not exclusively held to account. Egypt, Jordan and Syria were also held to account. You have not yet said that they are in breach of Resolution 242 so we must assume they have complied. Resolution 242 was passed by all of the members of the Security Council. It made sense to them and it is binding international law. If Israel thinks it's inequitable, then Israel can propose a resolution overturning 242.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No timetable was given, no territories specified, and no action has been taken because it is impossible to apply your interpretation of Law in an equitable fashion.

Nonsense. Territories were specified - territories occupied during the 1967 war. Have you read Resolution 660, the Resolution calling on Iraq to vacate Kuwait? That Resolution also does not list the territories that Iraq has to vacate but refers to a date and calls on Iraq to withdraw its forces to where they were on that date. Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I want you to see that your conclusions here are not founded in Law, rather a personal desire and a woeful bias.

I know what you wanted to make me see. You just failed to prove bias on my part. My interpretation of the law is the one that 99% of international lawyers give. Unfortunately you don't know that because you admit to knowing nothing about international law. I don't know, maybe all of us international lawyers are biased. God knows we're all married to porn stars.

What I find funny is the way you keep on making accusations against me about my knowledge only to reveal, by the very comment you make, your own lack of knowledge. Your personal attacks keep backfiring.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wrong. The only way I CAN walk out of that courtroom at all is if there is a timetable within which I am to comply with the terms of the ruling in this example.

No, the tribunal has found you to be in breach of the building regs, you are guilty of breach. You will probably leave the tribunal with a hefty fine for your breach, they may even jail you. It is then up to you to avoid further fines or other sanctions by complying with the regulations. They will normally tell you that you have x amount of time to knock the place down before they knock it down for you but that doesn't mean that until that time your building is legal. Your building is still illegal; you're just being given a time to right the wrong yourself before the government does it for you. At other times, the tribunal finds your building to be in breach and doesn't ask you to knock it down but does it themselves.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I "questioned" your legal background to encourage introspect and said as much.

Nonsense. You need to go back and read the thread. You questioned my legal knowledge numerous times WAY before you said it was to "encourage introspect". Look back to 23 February where you told me I had evidently never read the Geneva Conventions. I don't see what difference it makes anyway. It's been common knowledge in these fora what my background is for YEARS.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To watch you chest-pound legal background while failing to address the fundamental issues at hand in this debate up to and including the drafting and application of Law, has me more embarrassed for you than anything else.

Okay, let's address the fundamental issues, eBuddy. Please just answer Yes or No (or I don't know) to these 20 questions. I will give you a chance to qualify your answers later if you wish but for the sake of brevity, please just answer Yes or No. After you've replied, if you want to ask 20 in reply, I'm happy to answer Yes or No as I've asked you.

1) Is it an established principle of customary international law and the UN Charter that the use of force is prohibited except when acting in self-defence?
2) Does the statement "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal," represent a principle of international law?
3) If so, are there any exceptions to the no territorial acquisition principle that have been recognised in any Convention or ICJ case?
4) During the Six Day War, did Israel take control of the West Bank by the use of force/threat of the use of force?
5) Did Israel acquire the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War?
6) Does Israel claim the West Bank to be part of Israel?
7) Is Israel a signatory to the Geneva Conventions?
8) Has the International Court of Justice held that Israel is an "Occupying Power" under the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of the West Bank?
9) Has the Israeli Attorney General said that the Geneva Conventions apply to the West Bank?
10) In relation to the West Bank, is Israel an "Occupying Power" under the Geneva Conventions?
11) Do the Geneva Conventions apply to Israel's activities in the West Bank?
12) Is membership of the UN restricted to sovereign states?
13) Is Palestine a sovereign state?
14) Is Palestine a non-member observer of the United Nations?
15) Is Hamas a sovereign state?
16) Are Shebaa farms part of Israel?
17) Are Shebaa farms part of Lebanon?
18) Is Israel a viable state within its borders today?
19) Does Israel need more territory than it has today?
20) Do Palestinians need more territory than the "Occupied Territories that they occupy today?

[vmarks]

The point of the United Nations is not simply to be a 'talk forum.'

It was founded following WWII with the purpose of being a means of following a moral compass. It has lost its way by supporting global chaos instead.

General Assembly resolutions have no legal value. Remember that the Arab bloc enjoys a nice majority in the General Assembly and consistently uses every opportunity to pass anti-Israel resolutions.

Security Council resolutions have more teeth, but they too are only legally binding when adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. A Chapter VII resolution, according to the Charter, is an "action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression."

Let's talk about 242 for just a brief moment.

242 was adopted as a Chapter VI resolution, because Israel's actions in 1967 did not meet the definition of 'threats to the peace, breaches of the peace,' or even 'acts of aggression.'

Chapter VI deals with "pacific resolution of disputes." So we can see that Israel was not the aggressor here, despite what the Arab bloc would wish us to believe.

Under 242, Israel has rights and obligations regarding the territory its forces secured in 1967.

Resolution 242 applies only to "every state in the area" of the Middle East. It states explicitly that it is necessary to establish "secure and recognized boundaries." The U.S. ambassador to the UN at the time, Arthur Goldberg, clarified this point when he addressed the Security Council on November 15, 1967: "Historically, there have never been any secure and recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered this description."

Resolution 242 was an attempt to replace these armistice lines with recognized borders.

It is important to stress that Resolution 242 in no way called on Israel to withdraw to the lines of June 4, 1967, before the outbreak of the Six-Day War. Arab diplomats have tried to argue nonetheless that the resolution precludes any territorial modifications since the resolution's preamble refers to the international principle that the annexation of territory by force is illegal. True, the preamble specifically refers to "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Yet this principle was placed by the drafters of Resolution 242 in the preamble and not in the operative paragraphs below. There is a ruling of the International Court of Justice (from the dispute over Danzig) that preambles of League of Nations resolutions are not binding – only the operative parts of these resolutions can create legal responsibilities. This determination carried over from the era of the League of Nations to that of the United Nations.

The preamble of Resolution 242 was a compromise that took into account the other drafts that were before the Security Council, even though it did not really apply to Israel's case. And by keeping it in the preamble and not in the operative parts of the resolution, the architects of Resolution 242 avoided creating any legal obligations for Israel that could be construed as precluding the resolution's call for new "secure and recognized boundaries" beyond the earlier 1967 lines.

The English text specifically declines to specify the territories from which Israel must withdraw, because the text that was approved rejected the Soviet's proposed modification. The USSR proposed on November 20, 1967, to include a clause requiring Israel to withdraw to the pre-war lines of June 5, 1967, but this language was rejected.. The French text is a poor translation, and when there is a difference in the two languages, the one that reigns is the one the resolution was submitted in: English.

After Resolution 242 was adopted, the Soviet deputy foreign minister, Vasily Kuznetsov, admitted: "There is certainly much leeway for different interpretations that retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only so far as the lines it judges convenient."

Resolution 242 is not self-enforcing; Israel is not expected to unilaterally withdraw from territories to fulfill its terms. It requires direct negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

There is no condemnation of Israel's occupation of the territories that the Israel Defense Forces captured in 1967, nor is Israel's occupation of territories defined as "illegal."


The various elements of the resolution must be implemented in parallel. There is no Israeli obligation to withdraw prior to the achievement of a comprehensive peace.


There is no Israeli requirement to withdraw fully from the territories it captured in 1967. While Israel agreed to a full withdrawal in the case of its 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, the Egyptian case is not a precedent for other fronts. True, the Egyptians sought to include a reference in the Camp David Accords that the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace will constitute the principal basis of future agreements with other Arab states. However, what was finally concluded was an important caveat that limited the Egyptian model to other cases "as appropriate."


There is no reference to a Palestinian "right of return" in Resolution 242.


The main principle inferred in the resolution is that everything is still open for negotiation between the parties.

Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

General Assembly resolutions have no legal value.

Not true. They are not binding but you are overstating things to say that they have no legal value.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Remember that the Arab bloc enjoys a nice majority in the General Assembly

The Arab bloc? There are 192 members of the General Assembly. Do you want to list the more than 97 countries that make up this Arab bloc majority?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Security Council resolutions have more teeth, but they too are only legally binding when adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter

I disagree. The ICJ held in the Namibia case that resolutions under other parts of the UN Charter could also be binding. While I agree with you that Chapter VI Resolutions are generally held to be advisory, your statement is overly broad.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It is important to stress that Resolution 242 in no way called on Israel to withdraw to the lines of June 4, 1967, before the outbreak of the Six-Day War.

How do you figure that when the wording specifically says calls for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Arab diplomats have tried to argue nonetheless that the resolution precludes any territorial modifications since the resolution's preamble refers to the international principle that the annexation of territory by force is illegal.

Not only Arab diplomats. This is what most legal scholars argue. Only Israel argues the contrary.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There is a ruling of the International Court of Justice (from the dispute over Danzig) that preambles of League of Nations resolutions are not binding

This point is irrelevant because the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force is one of customary international law and it is part of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions which Israel is a signatory to. It is a principle that has been stated and restated countless times including by the US Government. So it doesn't have to be in the operative parts of Resolution 242 to be binding. This is why 242 "emphasizes" the principle rather than establishing it.

The point is that under international law, Israel cannot acquire the territory through the use of force or threat of use of force not because Resolution 242 says so but because customary and statutory international law say so. So Israel can only be in occupation of any territory that it controlled after the 1967 war. I'm not sure from your post whether you deny this.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The English text specifically declines to specify the territories from which Israel must withdraw

It says "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". That is specific. The common meaning is "all territories" and that is supported by the French meaning and by the statements of the vast majority of the states that commented when the Resolution was passed.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

when there is a difference in the two languages, the one that reigns is the one the resolution was submitted in: English.

First of all, you're assuming that there is a difference which the majority of scholars deny. Most people say the common meaning is withdrawal from all territories. Secondly, your statement about the English text taking precedence is incorrect. Both versions of the Resolution carry equal weight and the rules of interpretation say that they have to be synthesised. If one version of a Resolution is to take precedence, then specific wording is included saying that in the case of a difference between the two versions, one version will have precedence. That is not the case with Resolution 242. Both have equal weight.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Resolution 242 is not self-enforcing; Israel is not expected to unilaterally withdraw from territories to fulfill its terms. It requires direct negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

The various elements of the resolution must be implemented in parallel. There is no Israeli obligation to withdraw prior to the achievement of a comprehensive peace.

What is the basis for your saying this?

I have a few questions for yo too vmarks:

1) Does the statement "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal," represent a principle of international law?
2) If so, are there any exceptions to the no territorial acquisition principle that have been recognised in any Convention or ICJ case?
3) Did Israel acquire the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War?
4) Does Israel claim the West Bank to be part of Israel?
5) Has the International Court of Justice held that Israel is an "Occupying Power" under the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of the West Bank?
6) Has the Israeli Attorney General said that the Geneva Conventions apply to the West Bank?
7) Was South Africa's occupation of Namibia illegal? If so, what is the difference between Israel's occupation of the West Bank and South Africa's occupation of Namibia.

[vmarks]

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles -- Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This deliberate language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. For example, the Soviet Union attempted to introduce the word "all" before the word "territories" in the British draft resolution that became Resolution 242. Lord Caradon, the British UN ambassador, resisted these efforts.10 Since the Soviets tried to add the language of full withdrawal but failed, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the withdrawal clause contained in Resolution 242, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council.

Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart.

From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories," by Dore Gold

[Atomic Rooster]

Israel, Iran top 'negative list'

A majority of people believe that Israel and Iran have a mainly negative influence in the world, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6421597.stm

BBC WORLD SERVICE POLL
Most negative image:
1. Israel - 56%
2. Iran - 56%
3. US - 51%
4. North Korea - 48%

[vmarks]

If we live our lives paying attention to popularity rather than morality, we have failed.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

From "Occupied Territories" to
"Disputed Territories," by Dore Gold

AKA Hatred's Scribe, an Israeli POLITICIAN. Nice cut and paste but this is just Israeli propaganda (Gold was advisor to Sharon). Hardly a reference for international law! It uses the typical techniques of politics.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defence.

This is an example of a bald lie. The only jurists that draw the distinction Gold mentions are Israeli. International jurists recognise the fundamental principle of customary and statutory international law that territory cannot be acquired by the use of force or threat of use of force and they recognise this as an absolute principle with no exceptions.

This is one of the most well-established principles of international law that exists. It is enshrined in the Kellog-Briand Pact, the UN Charter, in countless resolutions of the UN General Assembly and in Security Resolutions 237, 252, 298, 446, 476, 480 and 1322. All of those resolutions confirm the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to territories occupied by Israel in 1967 – i.e. confirm that fact that Israel has no claim to the territories. It has been affirmed in cases before the International Court of Justice including in the recent case concerning the illegal wall built by Israel in the Occupied Territories. To say nothing of the specific statements of practically every single state on the planet including the United States and the EU.

The general consensus amongst international jurists is that the only legally valid land claims are those set out in UNGA Resolution 181 of 1948. This is why I said to eBuddy that I am actually more lenient than most in the international legal community.

There is absolutely overwhelming precedent establishing Israel as an occupier and the West Bank, Gaza and Golan as Occupied Territories. There are no recognised exceptions to the prohibition on the acquisition of territory. There is no difference between “aggressive conquest” and “conquest in self-defence” for the simple reason that there is no concept of conquest of land by force.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

This is a case of taking Schwebel’s comments out of context. If you actually read “What Weight to Conquest,” you’ll see Schwebel confirms: “As a general principle of international law, as that law has been reformed since the League, particularly by the Charter, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible.” All Schwebel was saying in the out of context quote Gold uses is that the Arab states had occupied the West Bank as a result of the unlawful use of force (an act of aggression) whereas Israel had occupied the West Bank as a result of the lawful use of force (an act of self-defence). As a result, when it came to a debate as to who should occupy the territory going forward, the Arab states’ argument that they should occupy the land was weaker. However, Schwebel doesn’t once deny that Israel could never acquire the West Bank as a result of its lawful use of force. He specifically affirms the principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force and affirms the position that Israel is in occupation of that territory.

Gold argues that Israel “has rights” to the West Bank but he stops short of saying what those rights are. He doesn’t claim that the territory has been acquired by Israel but he also insists that Israel does not occupy the territory. Why does he do that? Politics. If Israel claimed the West Bank, Israel would have to either cease to be a democracy or kill off a few million Palestinians in the West Bank. Because if it made all of the Palestinians in the West Bank Israeli, Jews would become a minority in their own country. However, the flip side is that if Israel recognises that it has no claims to the territory at all (as international law requires), then it loses power at the negotiating table. Israel’s strategy for years has been to trade land for peace. It comes to the negotiating table saying, “We have all of this land and we will give it to you if you do x, y, z.” Of course it undermines their position when the rest of the world says, “But you do not own the land so you are not in a position to use it as a bargaining tool.” This is the reason why Israel continues to sit on the fence and argue simultaneously that it has “rights” to the land without saying what those rights are. It is a POLITICAL argument that has no basis in law.

From a LEGAL perspective, international law is very clear as to what happens after a war. The use of force cannot result in the acquisition of land therefore, any state that finds itself in control of people who are not citizens of that state, is defined by international law as an Occupying Power.

If we’re going to quote scholars, how about we actually quote people that are engaged in international law. I’ll stay clear of acclaimed international jurists like Goldstone and Dugard who I’ve already quoted in this past. Here’s a piece by Anthony D'Amato, professor of law at Leighton who gives a pretty clear analysis of the key legal documents:

1. Palestine was a Mandate under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant; in our parlance, a trust. The beneficiaries were the people residing in Palestine. … Palestine was defined in Article 22 as one of those Mandates that was “provisionally” recognized as an independent nation but nevertheless needed on its road to statehood the “administrative advice and assistance” of a Mandatory Power.

2. The League of Nations was dissolved in 1946. Its duties regarding Mandates were assumed by the new United Nations.

3. Great Britain informed the UN of its intention to relinquish its trusteeship … Great Britain could not simply abandon its responsibilities to the people of Palestine. It could only relinquish its trusteeship responsibilities if it left the people of Palestine in a viable self-governing position.

4. In consultation with the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations, Great Britain argued that it could not leave Palestine as a unitary self-governing state, but it could relinquish its trusteeship if the territory were divided into two states, a Jewish State and an Arab State. The question then turned to the allocation of Palestinian land between the two new entities. Great Britain argued that the division should not reflect the actual numbers of Jews and Palestinians living in the territory because the Jews, as an ethnic/religious entity, had a right to invite the surviving victims of the Holocaust to come and live in the new Jewish State. As a result, the proposed “partition plan” would give substantially more territory to the Jewish State than was warranted by the number of Jews living in Palestine. (I might add that I have always believed that the British decision was both morally and legally justified.)

5. On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly adopted the key "partition" resolution, Resolution 181, ratifying the British proposals. It also provided for an independent international mixed status for the city of Palestine. In my opinion, this Resolution constitutes the first, last, and only legally authorized demarkation of the Israeli-Palestine borders. It was legally authoritative not because it took the form of a UN Resolution, but solely because the UN Resolution itself served as a ratification of the British proposal to divide the Mandate and leave its governance to the people. In other words, the alpha and omega of the legal power resided in Great Britain as the trustee and not in the United Nations. As trustee, it had the power to partition the territory if and only if that was the best way to provide for its future self-government. The General Assembly did not derive its legal powers directly from the Charter of the UN, but rather as surrogate for the League of Nations as it devolved its powers of mandate supervision to the UN and, through the UN, to the General Assembly itself. Legal title to the land was not conferrred by Resolution 181 alone but rather by Great Britain's acceptance of the terms of Resolution 181. The State of Israel owes its entire legal existence to the proper exercise by Great Britain of its League of Nations' Mandatory Power over the territory of Palestine. It owes nothing to the United Nations and, by the same token, cannot claim any additional rights from the United Nations. Instead, as soon as Resolution 181 was passed (and of course Great Britain voted in its favor), the legal borders between Israel and Palestine were forever fixed. Those borders henceforth could only be changed by one of two processes: first, explicit agreement between Israel and the authorized representatives of Palestine, and second, in the few cases of limited disputed areas where the verbal description contained in Resolution 181 was ambiguous in terms of existing maps or surveys, by international arbitration. The Security Council had and has no power to change international borders.

6. Although Israel proclaimed itself as a state within six months of Resolution 181, the Palestinians - for convoluted internal reasons plus the land-grabbing ambitions of surrounding Arab states - did not seriously entertain the idea of a State of Palestine for almost another forty years. In any event, as is well known, neighboring Arab states, proclaiming that the United Nations had sold out the Palestinians, attacked Israel. To the world’s astonishment, Israel not only prevailed in the war, but beat back the Arab invaders and in the process more than doubled the previously partitioned territory of Israel. Israel then ousted the Palestinians who were living in the conquered area, and they have ever since been remitted to conditions of squalor in refugee camps that dot the Middle East.

7. The six-day war of 1967 further increased the size of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. In the direct aftermath of the war, the Security Council of the United Nations, exercising its Chapter 7 powers under the UN Charter, passed Resolution 242 calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces “from territories of recent conflict” and “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.” Israel and the U.S. interpreted the Resolution’s call for "withdrawal from territories," and not "the" territories, as a less than complete withdrawal because the word “the” was not mentioned. The mild joke in circulation at the time was that anyone opposed to the U.S.-Israeli interpretation was "anti-semantic". Israel took the position that it was therefore not legally required to withdraw from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that it had just conquered, and indeed that it could erect Israeli settlements in those territories.

8. But semantics aside, in my view the Security Council simply does not have the power to take land from A and give it to B, irrespective of its undoubted legal power in the event of a threat or breach of the peace to restore international peace and security. The sanctity of international borders is a principle of international law that antedates the Charter of the United Nations; in fact it goes back five thousand years. No smaller nation would have supported the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 if the draft Charter had given to the five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, and China - the legal power to change international frontiers. After all, the five permanent members at the time had been wartime allies, and in concert they could reshape the world at will if they had been given such an unprecedented power. Morever, there is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations that even remotely hints of a power or entitlement in the Security Council to change international borders. Even Resolution 242 only calls for a withdrawal of forces, and makes no mention of a permanent change in boundaries. As far as the Israeli settlements are concerned, they are clearly illegal; an occupying power has no right to de facto annexation of portions of the territory by population transfers.

9. Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 above is the undeniable fact that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181.

And here’s Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton :

For 33 years, Israel has administered a military occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem in consistent and relentless defiance of the overwhelming will of the organized international community. The international consensus has been expressed through widely supported resolutions passed by the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations (hereafter UNSC and UNGA). UN Resolutions 242 and 338 affirmed the legal obligation of Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories obtained in the 1967 Six Day War … Until such time as Israel respects this obligation, the relevant principles of international law are contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (August 12, 1949)… Since 1967 … Israel has refused to accept this framework of legal obligations … Not only has Israel failed to withdraw from the Occupied Territories, during the occupation Israel has "created facts" -- heavily armed settlements, bypass roads and security zones in the midst of a future Palestinian state -- that seriously compromise basic Palestinian rights.

The UN has made clear the legal rights and duties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a series of key widely supported resolutions, including the following:
· UNGA Resolution 181 (II) concerning the Future Government of Palestine (November 29, 1947) establishes the parity of the two peoples with respect to their respective rights to establish states on the former mandated territory of Palestine, and the duty of both states to respect both minorities and the special juridical status of Jerusalem.
· UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 (November 22, 1967 and October 22, 1973) require Israeli withdrawal from territory occupied during the 1967 and 1973 wars, and call for “just settlement of the refugee problem."
· UNSC Resolutions 476, 480 and 1322 (June 30, 1980, November 12, 1980 and October 7, 2000) reaffirm the basic principle of international and UN law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by force or conquest, as well as the unconditional applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the civilian population of occupied territory.

Israel has contested the application of Geneva IV on the grounds that it has claims to the Palestinian territories, and that since their legal status is not fully established, it is not an instance of "belligerent occupation." As a result, Israel claims not to be formally bound by international humanitarian law … The UN has consistently refused to be diverted by this obfuscating tactic. As recently as October 7, 2000 in UNSC Resolution 1322, adopted by a vote of 14-0, with the US abstaining, the UN "called upon Israel to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities" under Geneva IV.

Corroborated journalistic and NGO accounts have documented the following more specific violations of Geneva IV standards: attacks on medical personnel and their marked vehicles and facilities, killing civilians who were situated in protected religious areas, reliance on live ammunition for crowd control and to handle unarmed and lightly armed demonstrators, numerous instances of "shooting to kill" by Israeli soldiers … and injuries deliberately inflicted on unarmed children by IDF snipers.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

That quote sums up my view on the entire issue quite well.

If you visit any of the other Arab nations today, you will see a lot of minorities discriminated against on every level...social, economic, political, etc....thats the way the "law" is (guess where that comes from). The difference with the Jews is, they actually did something about it. Where in most cases, christians, jews, zorastrians, etc...flee to the free world.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

That quote sums up my view on the entire issue quite well.

So you think that the West Bank is part of Israel?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll 

AKA Hatred's Scribe, an Israeli POLITICIAN. Nice cut and paste but this is just Israeli propaganda (Gold was advisor to Sharon). Hardly a reference for international law! It uses the typical techniques of politics.

Attack the messenger when you don't like the message?
Gold sat at the UN. He's uniquely qualified to comment, I believe.

This is an example of a bald lie. The only jurists that draw the distinction Gold mentions are Israeli. International jurists recognise the fundamental principle of customary and statutory international law that territory cannot be acquired by the use of force or threat of use of force and they recognise this as an absolute principle with no exceptions.

Except that he cites the jurists who draw that distinction and they aren't Israeli.

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht was not Israeli.
Lauterpacht entered the London School of Economics as a research student. His teacher
was Dr. Arnold McNair (later to become Lord McNair, the first British Judge of the
International Court of Justice after 1945). Lauterpacht was born in Austrio-Hungary before that territory he was born in reverted to Poland. He drew the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor.

Stephen Schwebel, who would later become the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State and then serve as President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, is not an Israeli. He is an American jurist.

This is one of the most well-established principles of international law that exists. It is enshrined in the Kellog-Briand Pact, the UN Charter, in countless resolutions of the UN General Assembly and in Security Resolutions 237, 252, 298, 446, 476, 480 and 1322. All of those resolutions confirm the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to territories occupied by Israel in 1967 – i.e. confirm that fact that Israel has no claim to the territories. It has been affirmed in cases before the International Court of Justice including in the recent case concerning the illegal wall built by Israel in the Occupied Territories. To say nothing of the specific statements of practically every single state on the planet including the United States and the EU.

The general consensus amongst international jurists is that the only legally valid land claims are those set out in UNGA Resolution 181 of 1948. This is why I said to eBuddy that I am actually more lenient than most in the international legal community.

There is absolutely overwhelming precedent establishing Israel as an occupier and the West Bank, Gaza and Golan as Occupied Territories. There are no recognised exceptions to the prohibition on the acquisition of territory. There is no difference between “aggressive conquest” and “conquest in self-defence” for the simple reason that there is no concept of conquest of land by force.
This is a case of taking Schwebel’s comments out of context. If you actually read “What Weight to Conquest,” you’ll see Schwebel confirms: “As a general principle of international law, as that law has been reformed since the League, particularly by the Charter, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible.” All Schwebel was saying in the out of context quote Gold uses is that the Arab states had occupied the West Bank as a result of the unlawful use of force (an act of aggression) whereas Israel had occupied the West Bank as a result of the lawful use of force (an act of self-defence). As a result, when it came to a debate as to who should occupy the territory going forward, the Arab states’ argument that they should occupy the land was weaker. However, Schwebel doesn’t once deny that Israel could never acquire the West Bank as a result of its lawful use of force. He specifically affirms the principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force and affirms the position that Israel is in occupation of that territory.

Gold argues that Israel “has rights” to the West Bank but he stops short of saying what those rights are.

Incorrect. The resolution spells out what Israel's rights are: Secure and defensible borders.
Israel returns some, but not all territory, negotiating to achieve secure borders which it can defend against outside attacks.

This is why the Golan is settled. This is why Sheba farms is settled (well, that and Annan's declaration that Israel was in compliance with resolutions on that matter.)

He doesn’t claim that the territory has been acquired by Israel but he also insists that Israel does not occupy the territory. Why does he do that? Politics. If Israel claimed the West Bank, Israel would have to either cease to be a democracy or kill off a few million Palestinians in the West Bank. Because if it made all of the Palestinians in the West Bank Israeli, Jews would become a minority in their own country. However, the flip side is that if Israel recognises that it has no claims to the territory at all (as international law requires), then it loses power at the negotiating table. Israel’s strategy for years has been to trade land for peace. It comes to the negotiating table saying, “We have all of this land and we will give it to you if you do x, y, z.” Of course it undermines their position when the rest of the world says, “But you do not own the land so you are not in a position to use it as a bargaining tool.” This is the reason why Israel continues to sit on the fence and argue simultaneously that it has “rights” to the land without saying what those rights are. It is a POLITICAL argument that has no basis in law.

Israel's position has even been to give land up in exchange for no promises of peace at all: Gaza. This was done within the framework of obtaining secure and defensible borders. I happen to disagree, it just moved the border that had to be secured northward and placed Sderot and Ashqelon in further danger - but still, that was why it was done.

242 and 338 spell out that Israel returns land in exchange for secure and defensible borders. What land it returns is subject to that negotiation. This was the way 242 was originally understood. The effort to re-cast it the way you now understand it is immoral, and leads to prolonging the implementation of defensible borders instead of armistice lines.

Now, Gold's position is that the territories cannot be said to be occupied, because Israel is not the reigning authority there - but instead the Palestinian Authority is. He comes to this conclusion by saying

Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."

In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

At Jordan's insistence, the 1949 Armistice Line, that constituted the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, was not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (emphasis added) (Article II.2).

vmarks: so, the armistice agreement says the question has to be settled by military means. Interesting, that.

You mention that you support 181 as the determining factor in what final arrangements ought to be and that you're more generous than 181. Remember if you will, 181 was a General Assembly resolution with no weight. Israel, nonetheless, agreed to it. The Arab world rejected it, both in the area 181 was meant to affect, and states surrounding.

Just as you wrongly believe 242 and 338 place all responsibilities on Israel with no rights, you believe 181 requires Israel to withdraw, nevermind that it was rejected by the other party to which it applies. For us who see these things in more than just a vacuum of what Israel must do, it means that 181 is worthless, dead, and gone - just one of the many opportunities for peace which Israel agreed to and was met with rejection. It is now impossible to return to that particular offer, not because of politics, not because of population composition, but because the Arab states and Arabs-cum-Palestinians chose war instead.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 was made null and void by the Arab states and the Palestinian leadership in the aftermath of its adoption on 29 November 1947. In statement after statement on the floor of the General Assembly, representatives of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia not only refused to comply with its recommendations but also subsequently admitted to the use of armed force to overthrow its provisions.

With the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine on 14 May 1948, the armies of seven Arab states illegally attacked the newly born State of Israel. UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie termed this act "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the [Second World] War." It should be noted that the Arab League actually included the rejection of the General Assembly Resolution of 29 November as a formal justification for its invasion.
The war imposed on Israel was particularly difficult for Jerusalem. By the end of May 1948, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City had fallen. Its residents were expelled. Ancient synagogues had been destroyed or desecrated. The rest of Jerusalem was put under siege and surrounded by invading armies on three sides. Only the convoys of the newly formed Israel Defense Forces provided food and water to Jerusalem's residents. No UN body took any action to protect Jerusalem at this critical time.

For these reasons, Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stated before the Knesset on 3 December 1949: "Thus we can no longer regard the UN Resolution of 29th November as having any moral force. After the UN failed to implement is own resolution, we regard the resolution of the 29th November concerning Jerusalem to be null and void."

vmarks: You see, the war made the resolution void, because the circumstances on which it was founded had changed.

Armistice agreements with Syria and Jordan followed the war, and those made no mention of 181. For all parties concerned, 181 was now irrelevent. The UN abandoned 181 with 242 and 338.

181 was not mentioned in Oslo one or Oslo two. 181 has not been meaningful for years. The revival of 181 is a departure from agreements made between Israel and its attackers, the Palestinians. Discarding legal obligations and bringing up resolutions they rejected over 50 years ago at their convenience is yet another act that places attempts for peace in jeopardy. Besides those rocket attacks and suicide bombers, I mean.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

That quote sums up my view on the entire issue quite well.

I don't think that you have really understood what the quote says, and vmarks likewise misreads the quote: It says that Schwebel thinks that Israel has more right to occupy the Westbank and Gaza, than Egypt and Jordan had, simply because Egypt and Jordan were also illegally occupying these territories and on top of that wanted to start a war, against which Israel started the war preemptively using its right to selfdefense.

The quote doesn't say that the Westbank, Gaza and East-Jerusalem were now legally part of Israel, it merely says that Israel has a slightly better right to occupy them than the other countries that occupied them before. Nothing of that denies that Israel is indeed in occupation of these two territories, or that it doesn't have to follow the respective international laws considering occupation.

The quote means merely that Jordan and Egypt aren't allowed legally to claim back these territories so that they, instead of Israel, can occupy them again.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Attack the messenger when you don't like the message?
Gold sat at the UN. He's uniquely qualified to comment, I believe.

Except that he cites the jurists who draw that distinction and they aren't Israeli.

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht was not Israeli.
Lauterpacht entered the London School of Economics as a research student. His teacher
was Dr. Arnold McNair (later to become Lord McNair, the first British Judge of the
International Court of Justice after 1945). Lauterpacht was born in Austrio-Hungary before that territory he was born in reverted to Poland. He drew the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor.

Stephen Schwebel, who would later become the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State and then serve as President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, is not an Israeli. He is an American jurist.


Incorrect. The resolution spells out what Israel's rights are: Secure and defensible borders.
Israel returns some, but not all territory, negotiating to achieve secure borders which it can defend against outside attacks.

This is why the Golan is settled. This is why Sheba farms is settled (well, that and Annan's declaration that Israel was in compliance with resolutions on that matter.)


Israel's position has even been to give land up in exchange for no promises of peace at all: Gaza. This was done within the framework of obtaining secure and defensible borders. I happen to disagree, it just moved the border that had to be secured northward and placed Sderot and Ashqelon in further danger - but still, that was why it was done.

242 and 338 spell out that Israel returns land in exchange for secure and defensible borders. What land it returns is subject to that negotiation. This was the way 242 was originally understood. The effort to re-cast it the way you now understand it is immoral, and leads to prolonging the implementation of defensible borders instead of armistice lines.

Now, Gold's position is that the territories cannot be said to be occupied, because Israel is not the reigning authority there - but instead the Palestinian Authority is. He comes to this conclusion by saying

Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."

In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

At Jordan's insistence, the 1949 Armistice Line, that constituted the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, was not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (emphasis added) (Article II.2).

vmarks: so, the armistice agreement says the question has to be settled by military means. Interesting, that.

You mention that you support 181 as the determining factor in what final arrangements ought to be and that you're more generous than 181. Remember if you will, 181 was a General Assembly resolution with no weight. Israel, nonetheless, agreed to it. The Arab world rejected it, both in the area 181 was meant to affect, and states surrounding.

Just as you wrongly believe 242 and 338 place all responsibilities on Israel with no rights, you believe 181 requires Israel to withdraw, nevermind that it was rejected by the other party to which it applies. For us who see these things in more than just a vacuum of what Israel must do, it means that 181 is worthless, dead, and gone - just one of the many opportunities for peace which Israel agreed to and was met with rejection. It is now impossible to return to that particular offer, not because of politics, not because of population composition, but because the Arab states and Arabs-cum-Palestinians chose war instead.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 was made null and void by the Arab states and the Palestinian leadership in the aftermath of its adoption on 29 November 1947. In statement after statement on the floor of the General Assembly, representatives of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia not only refused to comply with its recommendations but also subsequently admitted to the use of armed force to overthrow its provisions.

With the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine on 14 May 1948, the armies of seven Arab states illegally attacked the newly born State of Israel. UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie termed this act "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the [Second World] War." It should be noted that the Arab League actually included the rejection of the General Assembly Resolution of 29 November as a formal justification for its invasion.
The war imposed on Israel was particularly difficult for Jerusalem. By the end of May 1948, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City had fallen. Its residents were expelled. Ancient synagogues had been destroyed or desecrated. The rest of Jerusalem was put under siege and surrounded by invading armies on three sides. Only the convoys of the newly formed Israel Defense Forces provided food and water to Jerusalem's residents. No UN body took any action to protect Jerusalem at this critical time.

For these reasons, Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stated before the Knesset on 3 December 1949: "Thus we can no longer regard the UN Resolution of 29th November as having any moral force. After the UN failed to implement is own resolution, we regard the resolution of the 29th November concerning Jerusalem to be null and void."

vmarks: You see, the war made the resolution void, because the circumstances on which it was founded had changed.

Armistice agreements with Syria and Jordan followed the war, and those made no mention of 181. For all parties concerned, 181 was now irrelevent. The UN abandoned 181 with 242 and 338.

181 was not mentioned in Oslo one or Oslo two. 181 has not been meaningful for years. The revival of 181 is a departure from agreements made between Israel and its attackers, the Palestinians. Discarding legal obligations and bringing up resolutions they rejected over 50 years ago at their convenience is yet another act that places attempts for peace in jeopardy. Besides those rocket attacks and suicide bombers, I mean.

Troll is right, according to international law, UNGA resolution 181 is the only legal groundwork for the state of Israel and also for the palestinians. The fact that in 1947, the leadership of the palestinians rejected the partition doesn't mean that 181-resolution is dead, it means that it has to wait until another leadership of the palestinians is ready to accept it.

That has already happened,. 181-resolution got accepted by the leadership of the palestinians in 1988, and they expressed their willingness to go beyond that and to accept an Israel within the 1967-borders, ie. they were ready for a compromise to form a palestinian state in 22% of the land, instead of 45% of the land that the 181-resolution set for the palestinians.

Hamas is probably still rejecting both, 181 and 242-resolutions, as the basis for compromise and want instead 100% of the land, but we will have to see if Hamas will or can change in that regard.

If Hamas can't change in that regard, then the resolution 181 waits until another leadership comes up again that is ready to accept it.

Personally I think the 78%/22%-compromise between Israel and the palestinians is a viable compromise that can be sold to both sides, but it requires true and strong leadership from both sides to communicate to the two people that crucial compromises have to be made.

Troll, ebuddy, vmarks, keep up the good discussion, there are some really good arguments there, and try to resist getting personal over it.

Taliesin

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Attack the messenger when you don't like the message? Gold sat at the UN.

That’s precisely the point. Politicians sit at the UN not international lawyers. Gold was sent to the UN by the Israeli government. He was part of Sharon’s inner circle and was at the UN to push Israel's agenda. It is his job to argue Israel's interpretation of international law. He is not an impartial commentator and he holds no legal qualification in international law.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Except that he cites the jurists who draw that distinction and they aren't Israeli.

Incorrectly! He does what a politician is paid to do. He cuts and pastes things out of context so they represent his viewpoint. This is a perk of the job that academics like the ones I quoted don’t have. As I pointed out, Gold misquoted Schwebel. All Schwebel said is that in a discussion as to whether Egypt or Israel should occupy the West Bank, Israel’s claim was better. Schwebel is not authority for the point Gold makes, namely that a state that conducts a defensive war against a second state can, by that war, legally acquire the land that has been set aside for a third state. Schwebel said, in no uncertain terms in the very article that Gold quotes: "It is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible."

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This was the way 242 was originally understood.

It is irrelevant how 242 was understood. What is relevant is what the common meaning of 242 is.

And your statement as to what the parties understood is patently false because when the resolution passed, 9 out of the 10 nations that had anything to say supported this statement: "It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories - I repeat, all the territories - occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967."

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."

Quite. You quote the Israeli Supreme Court. As I said, it is only the Israelis that make this argument that international humanitarian law doesn’t apply in the Occupied Territories. Leaving a total void and allowing Israel to do whatever they like to the civilians that find themselves there.

What do international lawyers and other countries say? “The UN has consistently refused to be diverted by this obfuscating tactic. As recently as October 7, 2000 in UNSC Resolution 1322, adopted by a vote of 14-0, with the US abstaining, the UN "called upon Israel to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities" under Geneva IV,” (quoted from Falk). Security Council Resolution 1322 – fourteen votes to zero against the Israeli argument that Geneva IV doesn’t apply. And that is just the last in a whole string of precedents. There is absolutely no merit in law to Israel’s argument for the non-applicability of Geneva IV.

Besides, you talk about morality, vmarks. If Israel thought 30 years ago that there was a loophole in international law with the effect that a whole bunch of people that Israel had control over had no humanitarian rights at all, do you not think Israel (as a believer in democracy and human rights) had a moral obligation to press for an amendment to the law or for a new law such that these poor people WOULD have some humanitarian rights? What kind of state sits on the moral high ground and says, “Those people have no rights at all” and maintains this position for 30 years? Not one that is motivated by morality!

You’ve told us about the Israeli legal argument in the 1970’s. Since then, things have moved on a bit. In 2004, the Israeli Attorney-General recommended to the Israeli government that they apply the Fourth Geneva Convention on the basis that Israel’s legal argument in relation to Geneva IV was untenable. Of course Gold doesn’t mention this or the Resolutions against his argument because that is not his job as a politician.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You mention that you support 181 as the determining factor in what final arrangements ought to be and that you're more generous than 181. Remember if you will, 181 was a General Assembly resolution with no weight.

I didn't say I support 181 as the determining factor. I said that if you analyse the legal claims to land ownership, the only legally recognised borders are those set out in 181.

181 is the same resolution under which Israel was created. What would you say the effect is on Israel of arguing that it isn’t binding?

The fact that you even say 181 is not binding because it is a UNGA Resolution shows that you have not understood the legal analysis. The fact that it is a UNGA Resolution is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that Britain accepted the partition plan set out in Resolution 181 because Britain was the trustee of the territory and the only entity with the legal power to set the borders. All I can do is quote Prof. D'Amato again:

The alpha and omega of the legal power resided in Great Britain as the trustee and not in the United Nations … The General Assembly did not derive its legal powers directly from the Charter of the UN, but rather as surrogate for the League of Nations as it devolved its powers of mandate supervision to the UN and, through the UN, to the General Assembly itself. Legal title to the land was not conferred by Resolution 181 alone but rather by Great Britain's acceptance of the terms of Resolution 181. The State of Israel owes its entire legal existence to the proper exercise by Great Britain of its League of Nations' Mandatory Power over the territory of Palestine. It owes nothing to the United Nations and, by the same token, cannot claim any additional rights from the United Nations. Instead, as soon as Resolution 181 was passed (and of course Great Britain voted in its favor), the legal borders between Israel and Palestine were forever fixed. Those borders henceforth could only be changed by one of two processes: first, explicit agreement between Israel and the authorized representatives of Palestine, and second, in the few cases of limited disputed areas where the verbal description contained in Resolution 181 was ambiguous in terms of existing maps or surveys, by international arbitration. The Security Council had and has no power to change international borders.

Read that bolded bit twice because it’s important. The Arab states could not change the situation by voting against Resolution 181 because the decision was Great Britain’s alone. Anything anyone else said was completely and entirely irrelevant.

You need to realise that the UN has no power to allocate land to anyone. It cannot take land from the Palestinians and give it to the Israelis and arguing that the effect of any UN Resolution is to do that is senseless. Your argument relies on UN Resolutions forming the basis for claims to territory which is simply not possible. If we want to look at land claims, we need to trace the legal right. The only valid legal right that exists in respect of the territory which Israel and the Palestinians today occupy is the trusteeship given to Great Britain. Britain approved a partition plan for that territory (which is set out in UNGA 181). Nothing that has happened since then is of any relevance to the legal analysis at all because neither the UN nor any of the member states (other than perhaps Great Britain) have any power to change the boundaries set out in that original partition plan.

At the end of the day, Israel only has a valid legal claim to the territory set aside for the Jewish state in the original partition plan. The borders were fixed the minute Britain voted in favour of Resolution 181. If it wants anything else, it is forced to negotiate with all concerned parties. In respect of the territories that it occupied during the Six Day War, Israel has no valid legal claim to the territory because it is not possible under international law to acquire territory through the use of force. It is therefore in occupation of that territory and holds it on trust for the Palestinian people who the law recognises as the holders of the rights in that land. The Fourth Geneva Convention sets out Israel’s obligations to the people in the Occupied Territories and prevents Israel from doing a number of things such as taking water from the Occupied Territories, removing people from those territories, building walls on those territories and settling their own nationals in those territories.

[Big Mac]

Can a mod please correct the erroneous title of this thread finally? I'm not reading it any longer, but it still annoys me to see the name of fictional terrorist entity every time I load the index page.

[vmarks]

Big Mac,

You have to take some comfort in the fact that the Arabs rejected the name Palestinians, because that was the name the Jews called themselves by, and it was only decades later that the Arabs chose to adopt the name when it was politically convenient.

My wife's grandfather, for example, was a founding member of the Palestine Symphony Orchestra in the early 20th century. The Jerusalem Post was formerly the Palestine Post.

So really, your anger isn't directed at the word so much as the usurpation of that word by terrorists who have fictionalized an identity and used it for murder.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Yes, I remember it. You said that if Resolution 242 were implemented, that would lead to Israel being split in two. I showed you that you were talking crap because Resolution 242 said Israel had to go back to the 1967 borders when Israel was not split in two.

Wrong. You indicted me for my use of "split in two" and you posted a map. I defended my use of that statement and qualified it by showing you a similar map that illustrated the number of miles we're talking about in most cases is less than 15. I then reiterated; "yes, split in two".

You then changed your argument to say that it was effectively split in two which is also crap. Before 1967, Israel was a single contiguous territory and viable state. It was bigger than it had been when set up in 1948. That extra lebensraum had come at the expense of Palestinians.

Interesting you should use the word "lebensraum"; a word often associated with Nazi Germany's land grab. Again, you're not acting in the interest of Law, but attempting to bolster your own convictions under the guise of it. You weren't fond of my having reminded the readers that we're talking about a plot of land the size of New Jersey and proposed a bordering scheme that leaves them in most cases with less than 15 miles of territory, essentially splitting Israel in two.

Your English is clearly not good enough to understand what you're writing. "To the degree it can," is a qualification of the statement so "to the letter of the law" is inappropriate.

My English is fine. Two problems with this attempt;

In my interpretation, Israel has complied with International Law to the degree it can without risking national security. Why? Because of belligerency.

1) "In my interpretation" means 'in my interpretation' and is not the letter of the law. You of course can appreciate this.

2) Because of belligerency was the operative phrase in my reply. I've been stating that this activity must occur in concert or it will not occur. You hacked because of belligerency out of my response. You do this an awful lot for someone with law behind him.

After this has been explained to you numerous times, you still refer to "belligerent entities". There is no reference to belligerent entities in 242. You've been asking the question WHO the belligerent entities are since the start proving that you are incapable of reading English. I've told you over and over that "states of belligerency" refers to conditions not to entities or people. I can only think that you refuse to understand.
This is really not difficult to understand eBuddy. It's simple English. I'll quote what I've already written...

Unless "belligerency" is a weather condition, there are entities behind these conditions of war. Yes, I agree that (ii) is calling for an end to the "conditions of war" as "states of belligerency", but there's a reason they added this. Is it because Israel is to be held EXCLUSIVELY to account or are there other entities to which this provision applies? I'm going to post (ii) again for you to show that the comprehension problem is yours alone;

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".

Termination of ALL CLAIMS or STATES OF BELLIGERENCY. There are entities who make claims Troll. There are entities behind conditions of war. The statement clearly means ALL. By the way, name a STATE IN THE AREA that doesn't sponsor Hamas in some form or fashion. i.e. it applies to Hamas. Why? Because it clearly says ALL. By the way, Israel has yet to enjoy "acknowledgement of its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence free from threats or acts of force", but in your eyes must do all the complying leaving itself fully vulnerable to the "claims and states of belligerency" that literally envelope it.

- Would you give someone the title to your vehicle before they've paid you?
- Why does the word ALL not mean ALL when it is used, but clearly means ALL when it is not used?

"I told you that "states of belligerency" does not refer to nation states.

It doesn't just say "states of belligerency". It says; "ALL CLAIMS or states of belligerency". This is a call against claims perpetuating the states of belligerency. Why would they include this statement? Because it is expected that such must act in concert in the interest of peace and negotiation.

I told you that "every state in the area" referred to nation states.

Is Israel a NATION STATE? Yes. Therefore, they should enjoy acknowledgement of their sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence free from threats or acts of force. They have not enjoyed this.

Two different phrases with two different meanings." Hamas is not bound because it is not a "state in the area".

You act as if you know absolutely nothing about Hamas. Is this on purpose?
This is bias.

It is also not a member of the UN and therefore not bound by UN Resolutions. The phrase you quoted has nothing to do with who is bound by the Resolution.

The funny and tragic thing here is that the Resolution was worded so ambiguously Troll that it has BOUND absolutely no one to absolutely nothing. It is not worded to say Israel must withdraw from ALL territories because it does not say ALL. It says ALL in reference to "CLAIMS OR STATES OF BELLIGERENCY", but you've fashioned this to exclude entities like Hamas out of convenience. "All" means "all" only when it is NOT used.

Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria

Finally. What we have here is a "land for peace" equation. No peace, no land. No land, no peace. See the problem here? You're entirely focused on one side of the equation, but the fact of the matter is that these things must act in concert. It has been generally successful with regard to Egypt showing that Israel is in compliance and the plan works when both parties involved are willing and able to acknowledge its importance.

Israel was not exclusively held to account. Egypt, Jordan and Syria were also held to account. You have not yet said that they are in breach of Resolution 242 so we must assume they have complied.

You can use ignorance to assume anything you wish I suppose.
This is bias. I believe it is irresponsible to smugly pretend here.

I know what you wanted to make me see. You just failed to prove bias on my part. My interpretation of the law is the one that 99% of international lawyers give. Unfortunately you don't know that because you admit to knowing nothing about international law. I don't know, maybe all of us international lawyers are biased. God knows we're all married to porn stars.

No, but you are human and humans are opinionated. Can you cite for me some statistic affirming 99% of International lawyers give the same interpretation? I won't ask you about the "porn star" thing, that's none of my business.

No, the tribunal has found you to be in breach of the building regs, you are guilty of breach. You will probably leave the tribunal with a hefty fine for your breach, they may even jail you. It is then up to you to avoid further fines or other sanctions by complying with the regulations. They will normally tell you that you have x amount of time to knock the place down before they knock it down for you but that doesn't mean that until that time your building is legal. Your building is still illegal; you're just being given a time to right the wrong yourself before the government does it for you. At other times, the tribunal finds your building to be in breach and doesn't ask you to knock it down but does it themselves.

These regulations are generally imposed through green-space laws and lot lines. Do any of the parties involved have the lot lines displayed for exhibition? Are they well-documented? We're going to need proof that in fact my garage exceeds my lot line. Otherwise, I'll not be tearing down a damned thing your honor and if you seek to impose some arbitrary ruling against me simply because I'm Jewish, your days on that bench are numbered.

Nonsense. You need to go back and read the thread. You questioned my legal knowledge numerous times WAY before you said it was to "encourage introspect". Look back to 23 February where you told me I had evidently never read the Geneva Conventions. I don't see what difference it makes anyway. It's been common knowledge in these fora what my background is for YEARS.

You asked me first what my legal background was. I answered. I then asked you to ask yourself about yours and specifically told you not to tell me. How should I respect your understanding of international law when you fail repeatedly to accurately comprehend our simple conversation?

"It's been common knowledge in these fora what my background is for YEARS."

Yeah I've been posting here a while too and I'm familiar with your background. I don't define people in these fora by what they claim to do. I define them by who they are.

Okay, let's address the fundamental issues, eBuddy. Please just answer Yes or No (or I don't know) to these 20 questions. I will give you a chance to qualify your answers later if you wish but for the sake of brevity, please just answer Yes or No. After you've replied, if you want to ask 20 in reply, I'm happy to answer Yes or No as I've asked you.

After pages of ducking and weaving and editing out my questions, you have the audacity to assume some offensive posture by rattling off 20 loaded-to-the-hilt questions? In the spirit of fun;

1) Is it an established principle of customary international law and the UN Charter that the use of force is prohibited except when acting in self-defence?

Let me get this straight. Are you trying to suggest that customary international law and the UN Charter do not allow one to use force in defending itself? I'd say no. It is not an established principle of customary international law to PROHIBIT the use of force in defending one's self. In fact, article 51 of the UN Charter; "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence”

2) Does the statement "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal," represent a principle of international law?

*As an aside, I wonder if the High Contracting parties met to discuss Cambodia or Rwanda. I digress...
Palestinian terrorism is an act of aggression. Israel has the right to defend itself as granted above. “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as enlarging or diminishing in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful” More ambiguity. Why? Because you cannot make this blanket statement and apply it in an equitable fashion. In fact, in the context of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings; terrorism must be fought by all parties, by all means, at all times, by whomever and against all perpetrators.
That's what Israel is doing in accordance with the principles of international law. By all means, don't take the "principles of international law" from a layperson like me.

Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Judge of the International Court of Justice, between 1955-60; territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the ‘unlawful’ use of force. But to omit the word ‘unlawful’ is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.”
In answer to your question; it's debatable. Obviously.

3) If so, are there any exceptions to the no territorial acquisition principle that have been recognised in any Convention or ICJ case?

Are there any exceptions to "all" when it is used?

4) During the Six Day War, did Israel take control of the West Bank by the use of force/threat of the use of force?

No. They took control of the West Bank by resisting the use of force and/or threats of the use of force against them in self defense.

5) Did Israel acquire the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War?

Yes.

6) Does Israel claim the West Bank to be part of Israel?

The question is; Shouldn't it? Lord Caradon, former British Ambassador to the UN and a drafter of Resolution 242, told the Beirut Daily Star on 12 June 1974: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to."

7) Is Israel a signatory to the Geneva Conventions?

Yes.
Does "all" not mean "all" when it is used, but mean "all" when it isn't?

8) Has the International Court of Justice held that Israel is an "Occupying Power" under the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of the West Bank?

People often assume the word "occupying" is nefarious or illegal. This is not the case with Israel because the Convention only applies to entities that have signed the Fourth Geneva Convention. You said so yourself. It's in the second article. Since the Palestinians do not qualify under this definition, the legal term “Occupying Power” does not apply. Either way, it does not say illegal occupying power.

9) Has the Israeli Attorney General said that the Geneva Conventions apply to the West Bank?

Many people have said many things. You will only view the ones that espouse your particular viewpoint. We could do this for decades. Is there a point?

10) In relation to the West Bank, is Israel an "Occupying Power" under the Geneva Conventions?

Yes, but what are they occupying? "Occupying Power" is not necessarily nefarious.

11) Do the Geneva Conventions apply to Israel's activities in the West Bank?

No.

12) Is membership of the UN restricted to sovereign states?

States, yes. Point please? Terrorism must be fought by all parties, by all means, at all times, by whomever and against all perpetrators?

13) Is Palestine a sovereign state?

Depends on who you ask or if you're looking for their passport in general right? Point please?

14) Is Palestine a non-member observer of the United Nations?

They are seated after member-states and before observers. Does "all" mean "all" only when it is NOT used?

15) Is Hamas a sovereign state?

So "all" only means "all" when it is not used.

16) Are Shebaa farms part of Israel?

No. Shebaa farms are part of the non UN member; Lebanyria. Israel is holding on to it 'til they can sort things out.

17) Are Shebaa farms part of Lebanon?

No. They are part of Syrenon apparently.

18) Is Israel a viable state within its borders today?

debatable. I don't think its future is bright. I think it would be even more dim if they concede to suicide.

19) Does Israel need more territory than it has today?

More territory than the equivalent of New Jersey? Depends on how much belligerency we witness in the coming years. My guess is... probably.

20) Do Palestinians need more territory than the "Occupied Territories that they occupy today?

We don't know. They don't know. They couldn't make up their minds when asked and they'd likely not be able to make up their minds today. Offers denied, identities misspelled, mispronounced, and self-determination as important to them as the "refugee problem" was to Arafat and the surrounding Arab countries. The question is, Do they need Jerusalem? Probably not.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Big Mac,

You have to take some comfort in the fact that the Arabs rejected the name Palestinians, because that was the name the Jews called themselves by, and it was only decades later that the Arabs chose to adopt the name when it was politically convenient.

My wife's grandfather, for example, was a founding member of the Palestine Symphony Orchestra in the early 20th century. The Jerusalem Post was formerly the Palestine Post.

So really, your anger isn't directed at the word so much as the usurpation of that word by terrorists who have fictionalized an identity and used it for murder.

Yes, that is what I meant, vmarks. I don't have a problem with using the historical term Palestine Mandate (even though I don't like that name for the region, I realize it's what was used in modern history as a carry over from Roman times), nor do I have problem with rcognizing that returning Jews were referred to as Palestinians and had to carry ID cards to that affect. But I do object to seeing the title of this thread because it perpetuates flagrantly false notions about what is properly referred to as the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

[Troll]

I'm astounded at the way you continue to ask the same questions over and over again despite my having given you the answers. Most of your post has already been dealt with so don't interpret my failure to deal with each point as an admission of anything or a refusal to answer anything.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is not worded to say Israel must withdraw from ALL territories because it does not say ALL.

It is not worded to say "some" either and you say it means "some".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q1) Is it an established principle of customary international law and the UN
Charter that the use of force is prohibited except when acting in self-defence?

A. Are you trying to suggest that customary international law and the UN Charter do not allow one to use force in defending itself? I'd say no.

Comprehension problem again. Read the question carefully - your answer is clearly "Yes". So this is AGREED.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 2) Does the statement "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal," represent a principle of international law?

A. It's debatable.

DISAGREE. The problem with going to Zionist websites for your information is that they are cutting and pasting things out of context. Did you read this bit of the Lauterpacht quote: "if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign." Lauterpacht's quote does not question the principle I stated. He does not question the fact that a state cannot acquire territory by the use of force. What he says is that territorial change can legally be effected by the use of force and the example he gives is where an illegal invader is ousted from territory and the lawful sovereign is restored. That is not a case of acquisition of territory. It is a case of restoration of territory to the sovereign. The analogy would be Kuwait. When the allied forces pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, territorial change occurred and it was completely legal. However, territorial acquisition did not occur and could not have occurred legally. The principle is entirely consistent. Iraq couldn't acquire territory by invading Iraq nor could any of the allied forces or Kuwait acquire territory by ousting Iraq. The best the use of force could achieve was to restore the default position. Same in Palestine. Neither Egypt, Jordan, Syria nor Israel could acquire territory through the use of force in the Six Day War. The best they could do is restore the status quo ante - i.e. Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria within their pre '67 boundaries and the Palestinian territories held on trust for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

This principle has been part of international law since the Kellog Briand pact and it is enshrined in the UN Charter, countless international treaties and countless UN Resolutions. You haven't showed evidence of a single ounce of debate. Even a judge who's been dead for nearly half a century agrees. Next to the prohibition on the use of force, this is possibly the most clear principle of international law.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 3) If so, are there any exceptions to the no territorial acquisition principle that have been recognised in any Convention or ICJ case?

A. [No answer]

I'll take that as a "no" then. As to your question, I'll just copy and past the answer I've already given: "As I have said over and over again, I never said that all doesn't mean all. Every time the word "all" is used, it means all."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 4) During the Six Day War, did Israel take control of the West Bank by the use of force/threat of the use of force?

A. No. They took control of the West Bank by resisting the use of force and/or threats of the use of force against them in self defense.

There is nothing nefarious about the legal use of force. You seem to think that if you admit that Israel used force, that you're somehow condemning Israel. Israel clearly used force to take control over the West Bank. That's why it was called the Six Day War. That use of force was not illegal, however, because of the principle under Q1 above - Israel was acting in self defence. I.e. Israel took control of the West Bank through the legal use of force.

So this is actually AGREED too it seems to me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 5) Did Israel acquire the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War?

A. Yes.

DISAGREE. This is where you part company with international lawyers, with the governments of every country on the planet including Israel and the US. What you're saying that the West Bank became part of Israel in 1967. I take it that since you believe that Israel is a democracy, you think that Israel has been guilty of the crime of apartheid for the last 40 years since the people in the West Bank haven't been entitled to a vote in Israel despite the fact that they live in Israel.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 6) Does Israel claim the West Bank to be part of Israel?

A. [No answer]

Israel does not claim the West Bank to be part of Israel.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 7) Is Israel a signatory to the Geneva Conventions?

Yes.

AGREED

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 8) Has the International Court of Justice held that Israel is an "Occupying Power" under the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of the West Bank?

A. People often assume the word "occupying" is nefarious or illegal.

This question was about the International Court of Justice. Your reply isn't related to the question so I'll help you out. The answer is Yes. During the recent ICJ case on the Separation Wall, the International Court of Justice held that Israel is bound to apply Geneva IV in the Occupied Territories.

Here, for your reading pleasure are extracts from the judgement which also deal with some of the other points you raised:

90. In paragraph 3 of Annex I to the report of the Secretary‑General, entitled “Summary Legal Position of the Government of Israel”, it is stated that Israel does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention “is applicable to the occupied Palestinian Territory”, citing “the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt” and inferring that it is “not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention”

91. The Court would recall that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 ... Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951... Furthermore, Palestine gave a unilateral undertaking, by declaration of 7 June 1982, to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention.

92. Moreover, for the purpose of determining the scope of application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it should be recalled that under common Article 2 of the four Conventions of 12 August 1949:

“... Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.”

93. After the occupation of the West Bank in 1967, the Israeli authorities issued an order No. 3 stating in its Article 35 that:

“the Military Court . . . must apply the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War...”

94. The Court would recall that, according to customary international law as expressed in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

95. The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. If those two conditions are satisfied, the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties.

The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.

97. Moreover, the Court would observe that the ICRC, whose special position with respect to execution of the Fourth Geneva Convention must be “recognized and respected at all times” by the parties pursuant to Article 142 of the Convention, has also expressed its opinion on the interpretation to be given to the Convention. In a declaration of 5 December 2001, it recalled that “the ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem”.

98. The Court notes that the General Assembly has, in many of its resolutions, taken a position to the same effect. ... resolutions 56/60 and 58/97....

99. The Security Council, for its part, had already on 14 June 1967 taken the view in resolution 237 (1967) that “all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War . . . should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict”. Subsequently ...resolution 271 ... 446 ... 681 ... 799 ... 904

100. The Court would note finally that the Supreme Court of Israel, in a judgment dated 30 May 2004, also found that:

“The military operations of the [Israeli Defence Forces] in Rafah, to the extent they affect civilians, are governed by Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907 . . . and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949.”

101. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 9) Has the Israeli Attorney General said that the Geneva Conventions apply to the West Bank?

A. [No answer]

The answer is Yes, both the Israeli Attorney General and the Supreme Court of Israel have said that Geneva IV applies in the Occupied Territories.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 10) In relation to the West Bank, is Israel an "Occupying Power" under the Geneva Conventions?

A. Yes, but what are they occupying? "Occupying Power" is not necessarily nefarious.

AGREED. There is nothing nefarious about being an Occupying Power.

However, your answers to questions 10 and 5 are conflictual. If Israel acquired the West Bank in the Six Day War, it cannot be an Occupying Power because an Occupying is necessarily in territory that it has not acquired, that does not belong to it. So you need to explain which of answer 5 and 10 is the one you want to stick with.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 11) Do the Geneva Conventions apply to Israel's activities in the West Bank?

A. No.

Fair enough. Again not sure how you can answer yes to 10 and no to 11 but so be it. You're making the argument that Israel made at the ICJ and that was shot down there.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 12) Is membership of the UN restricted to sovereign states?

A. yes.

AGREED.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 13) Is Palestine a sovereign state?

A. Depends on who you ask.

I asked you for YOUR opinion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 14) Is Palestine a non-member observer of the United Nations?

A. They are seated after member-states and before observers.

Palestine was granted non-member observer status at the UN on 22 November 1974.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 15) Is Hamas a sovereign state?

A. [No answer.]

The correct answer is no.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 16) Are Shebaa farms part of Israel?

A. No.

AGREED

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 17) Are Shebaa farms part of Lebanon?

A. No.

DISAGREE.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

18) Is Israel a viable state within its borders today?

A. debatable.

DISAGREE. Israel is certainly viable. It has shown a capability to protect its borders. Its relatively safe compared to most other countries. Its economy is better than most. Its politically more stable than most. Definitely viable in my opinion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 19) Does Israel need more territory than it has today?

A. probably.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Q. 20) Do Palestinians need more territory than the "Occupied Territories that they occupy today?

We don't know.

Population Density:
Israel - 324/km²
Gaza Strip - 3750/km²
West Bank - 255/km²
W. Bank + Gaza - 469/km²

[vmarks]

Actually, the Shebaa farms question has been settled. You both failed to get the answer right:

Israel extended Israeli law to the Shebaa farmlands as it did with the Golan.

The withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory in Southern Lebanon took place on May 25, 2000. On June 18, 2000, the United Nations affirmed that Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, in accordance with Resolution 425. Syria and Lebanon disputed the United Nations certification that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was complete.

Nevertheless, the UN affirmed that Israel was in compliance, therefore Shebaa farms is not in Syria or Lebanon.

[18 Jun 2000] SC/6878 : SECURITY COUNCIL ENDORSES SECRETARY-GENERAL�S CONCLUSION ON ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL FROM LEBANON AS OF 16 JUNE

If you believe in the UN as Troll does, then that's the final word. If you don't, then it's easy to look at Shebaa farms as a part of the land under 242 - a secure border.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Nevertheless, the UN affirmed that Israel was in compliance, therefore Shebaa farms is not in Syria or Lebanon.
...
If you believe in the UN as Troll does, then that's the final word. If you don't, then it's easy to look at Shebaa farms as a part of the land under 242 - a secure border.

Evidently you didn't read my earlier reply to you carefully enough. Here it is for you again:

You need to realise that the UN has no power to allocate land to anyone. It cannot take land from the Palestinians [or Lebanon] and give it to the Israelis and arguing that the effect of any UN Resolution is to do that is senseless. Your argument relies on UN Resolutions forming the basis for claims to territory which is simply not possible.

I also quoted Prof. D'Amoto who said:

The Security Council simply does not have the power to take land from A and give it to B, irrespective of its undoubted legal power in the event of a threat or breach of the peace to restore international peace and security. The sanctity of international borders is a principle of international law that antedates the Charter of the United Nations; in fact it goes back five thousand years. No smaller nation would have supported the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 if the draft Charter had given to the five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, and China - the legal power to change international frontiers. After all, the five permanent members at the time had been wartime allies, and in concert they could reshape the world at will if they had been given such an unprecedented power. Morever, there is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations that even remotely hints of a power or entitlement in the Security Council to change international borders.

[vmarks]

The UN has the ability to determine when states are in compliance with its resolutions.

In this case, it made a correct determination. Settled. The UN didn't change borders or assign land, they simply affirmed that borders had changed and that Israel was in compliance with the resolution on withdrawal.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The UN didn't change borders or assign land ...

How did the borders change then?

[vmarks]

Here's a question or three for you:
Can borders ever change?

Can borders ever change as the result of fighting?

Can the UN recognize that borders have changed, whether the border change resulted from fighting or not?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, the Shebaa farms question has been settled. You both failed to get the answer right:

Israel extended Israeli law to the Shebaa farmlands as it did with the Golan.

The withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory in Southern Lebanon took place on May 25, 2000. On June 18, 2000, the United Nations affirmed that Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, in accordance with Resolution 425. Syria and Lebanon disputed the United Nations certification that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was complete.

Nevertheless, the UN affirmed that Israel was in compliance, therefore Shebaa farms is not in Syria or Lebanon.

[18 Jun 2000] SC/6878 : SECURITY COUNCIL ENDORSES SECRETARY-GENERAL�S CONCLUSION ON ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL FROM LEBANON AS OF 16 JUNE

If you believe in the UN as Troll does, then that's the final word. If you don't, then it's easy to look at Shebaa farms as a part of the land under 242 - a secure border.

What a nonsense, you should better try to read more thouroughly: The resolution 425 that was taken back because Israel withdrew from Lebanon, specifically deals with the Israel-Lebanon-conflict.
The UN's position is that the sheeba-farms just like the Golan-heights belong to Syria and are now still illegally occupied according to international law. And on this one, even Israel's argument that it uses regarding the Westbank, Jerusalem and Gaza, namely that Israel were not occupying these territories because they didn't legally belong to a souvereign state before, has no grip since both territories, the Golan-heights and the sheeba-farms belonged and belong legally to Syria.

Nice try though.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Oh, if that's your case, then they're covered under 242 as secure defensible borders.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wrong. You indicted me for my use of "split in two" and you posted a map. I defended my use of that statement and qualified it by showing you a similar map that illustrated the number of miles we're talking about in most cases is less than 15. I then reiterated; "yes, split in two".


Interesting you should use the word "lebensraum"; a word often associated with Nazi Germany's land grab. Again, you're not acting in the interest of Law, but attempting to bolster your own convictions under the guise of it. You weren't fond of my having reminded the readers that we're talking about a plot of land the size of New Jersey and proposed a bordering scheme that leaves them in most cases with less than 15 miles of territory, essentially splitting Israel in two.


My English is fine. Two problems with this attempt;

In my interpretation, Israel has complied with International Law to the degree it can without risking national security. Why? Because of belligerency.

1) "In my interpretation" means 'in my interpretation' and is not the letter of the law. You of course can appreciate this.

2) Because of belligerency was the operative phrase in my reply. I've been stating that this activity must occur in concert or it will not occur. You hacked because of belligerency out of my response. You do this an awful lot for someone with law behind him.


Unless "belligerency" is a weather condition, there are entities behind these conditions of war. Yes, I agree that (ii) is calling for an end to the "conditions of war" as "states of belligerency", but there's a reason they added this. Is it because Israel is to be held EXCLUSIVELY to account or are there other entities to which this provision applies? I'm going to post (ii) again for you to show that the comprehension problem is yours alone;

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".

Termination of ALL CLAIMS or STATES OF BELLIGERENCY. There are entities who make claims Troll. There are entities behind conditions of war. The statement clearly means ALL. By the way, name a STATE IN THE AREA that doesn't sponsor Hamas in some form or fashion. i.e. it applies to Hamas. Why? Because it clearly says ALL. By the way, Israel has yet to enjoy "acknowledgement of its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence free from threats or acts of force", but in your eyes must do all the complying leaving itself fully vulnerable to the "claims and states of belligerency" that literally envelope it.

- Would you give someone the title to your vehicle before they've paid you?
- Why does the word ALL not mean ALL when it is used, but clearly means ALL when it is not used?



It doesn't just say "states of belligerency". It says; "ALL CLAIMS or states of belligerency". This is a call against claims perpetuating the states of belligerency. Why would they include this statement? Because it is expected that such must act in concert in the interest of peace and negotiation.


Is Israel a NATION STATE? Yes. Therefore, they should enjoy acknowledgement of their sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence free from threats or acts of force. They have not enjoyed this.


You act as if you know absolutely nothing about Hamas. Is this on purpose?
This is bias.


The funny and tragic thing here is that the Resolution was worded so ambiguously Troll that it has BOUND absolutely no one to absolutely nothing. It is not worded to say Israel must withdraw from ALL territories because it does not say ALL. It says ALL in reference to "CLAIMS OR STATES OF BELLIGERENCY", but you've fashioned this to exclude entities like Hamas out of convenience. "All" means "all" only when it is NOT used.


Finally. What we have here is a "land for peace" equation. No peace, no land. No land, no peace. See the problem here? You're entirely focused on one side of the equation, but the fact of the matter is that these things must act in concert. It has been generally successful with regard to Egypt showing that Israel is in compliance and the plan works when both parties involved are willing and able to acknowledge its importance.


You can use ignorance to assume anything you wish I suppose.
This is bias. I believe it is irresponsible to smugly pretend here.


No, but you are human and humans are opinionated. Can you cite for me some statistic affirming 99% of International lawyers give the same interpretation? I won't ask you about the "porn star" thing, that's none of my business.


These regulations are generally imposed through green-space laws and lot lines. Do any of the parties involved have the lot lines displayed for exhibition? Are they well-documented? We're going to need proof that in fact my garage exceeds my lot line. Otherwise, I'll not be tearing down a damned thing your honor and if you seek to impose some arbitrary ruling against me simply because I'm Jewish, your days on that bench are numbered.


You asked me first what my legal background was. I answered. I then asked you to ask yourself about yours and specifically told you not to tell me. How should I respect your understanding of international law when you fail repeatedly to accurately comprehend our simple conversation?

"It's been common knowledge in these fora what my background is for YEARS."

Yeah I've been posting here a while too and I'm familiar with your background. I don't define people in these fora by what they claim to do. I define them by who they are.


After pages of ducking and weaving and editing out my questions, you have the audacity to assume some offensive posture by rattling off 20 loaded-to-the-hilt questions? In the spirit of fun;


Let me get this straight. Are you trying to suggest that customary international law and the UN Charter do not allow one to use force in defending itself? I'd say no. It is not an established principle of customary international law to PROHIBIT the use of force in defending one's self. In fact, article 51 of the UN Charter; "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence”


*As an aside, I wonder if the High Contracting parties met to discuss Cambodia or Rwanda. I digress...
Palestinian terrorism is an act of aggression. Israel has the right to defend itself as granted above. “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as enlarging or diminishing in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful” More ambiguity. Why? Because you cannot make this blanket statement and apply it in an equitable fashion. In fact, in the context of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings; terrorism must be fought by all parties, by all means, at all times, by whomever and against all perpetrators.
That's what Israel is doing in accordance with the principles of international law. By all means, don't take the "principles of international law" from a layperson like me.

Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Judge of the International Court of Justice, between 1955-60; territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the ‘unlawful’ use of force. But to omit the word ‘unlawful’ is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.”
In answer to your question; it's debatable. Obviously.


Are there any exceptions to "all" when it is used?


No. They took control of the West Bank by resisting the use of force and/or threats of the use of force against them in self defense.


Yes.


The question is; Shouldn't it? Lord Caradon, former British Ambassador to the UN and a drafter of Resolution 242, told the Beirut Daily Star on 12 June 1974: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to."


Yes.
Does "all" not mean "all" when it is used, but mean "all" when it isn't?


People often assume the word "occupying" is nefarious or illegal. This is not the case with Israel because the Convention only applies to entities that have signed the Fourth Geneva Convention. You said so yourself. It's in the second article. Since the Palestinians do not qualify under this definition, the legal term “Occupying Power” does not apply. Either way, it does not say illegal occupying power.


Many people have said many things. You will only view the ones that espouse your particular viewpoint. We could do this for decades. Is there a point?


Yes, but what are they occupying? "Occupying Power" is not necessarily nefarious.


No.

States, yes. Point please? Terrorism must be fought by all parties, by all means, at all times, by whomever and against all perpetrators?


Depends on who you ask or if you're looking for their passport in general right? Point please?


They are seated after member-states and before observers. Does "all" mean "all" only when it is NOT used?


So "all" only means "all" when it is not used.


No. Shebaa farms are part of the non UN member; Lebanyria. Israel is holding on to it 'til they can sort things out.


No. They are part of Syrenon apparently.


debatable. I don't think its future is bright. I think it would be even more dim if they concede to suicide.


More territory than the equivalent of New Jersey? Depends on how much belligerency we witness in the coming years. My guess is... probably.


We don't know. They don't know. They couldn't make up their minds when asked and they'd likely not be able to make up their minds today. Offers denied, identities misspelled, mispronounced, and self-determination as important to them as the "refugee problem" was to Arafat and the surrounding Arab countries. The question is, Do they need Jerusalem? Probably not.

Wow, ebuddy. What a long post. I almost wish I could be bothered reading it.

[Hawkeye_a]

ill sum it up after 7 pages. Israel WON (and keep winning) and the looser(s) are still bitching.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

ill sum it up after 7 pages. Israel WON (and keep winning) and the looser(s) are still bitching.

What did that guy from Serenity/Firefly say?

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one. ..."

Taliesin

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Here's a question or three for you:
Can borders ever change?

Can borders ever change as the result of fighting?

Can the UN recognize that borders have changed, whether the border change resulted from fighting or not?

I've already answered that. Why don't you want to answer my question?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Wow, ebuddy. What a long post. I almost wish I could be bothered reading it.

Seeing as this thread is littered with lengthy posts I'll assume you did read it and disagree, but have no desire to enter the discussion. Can't say that I blame you.

Perhaps the only thing we can agree on here is that this is the never ending story.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I'm astounded at the way you continue to ask the same questions over and over again despite my having given you the answers. Most of your post has already been dealt with so don't interpret my failure to deal with each point as an admission of anything or a refusal to answer anything.

Okay.

It is not worded to say "some" either and you say it means "some".

That is the only interpretation to come of text this ambiguous. Furthermore, it is the only reasonable conclusion as I've illustrated several times.

DISAGREE. The problem with going to Zionist websites...

The problem with espousing your opinions under the guise of law...

Did you read this bit of the Lauterpacht quote: "if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign." Lauterpacht's quote does not question the principle I stated. He does not question the fact that a state cannot acquire territory by the use of force. What he says is that territorial change can legally be effected by the use of force and the example he gives is where an illegal invader is ousted from territory and the lawful sovereign is restored. That is not a case of acquisition of territory. It is a case of restoration of territory to the sovereign. The analogy would be Kuwait. When the allied forces pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, territorial change occurred and it was completely legal. However, territorial acquisition did not occur and could not have occurred legally. The principle is entirely consistent. Iraq couldn't acquire territory by invading Iraq nor could any of the allied forces or Kuwait acquire territory by ousting Iraq. The best the use of force could achieve was to restore the default position. Same in Palestine. Neither Egypt, Jordan, Syria nor Israel could acquire territory through the use of force in the Six Day War. The best they could do is restore the status quo ante - i.e. Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria within their pre '67 boundaries and the Palestinian territories held on trust for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Fair enough, but with the exceptions;

- It says nothing about pre '67 boundaries.
- You mentioned; "same in Palestine", but the problem is Kuwait had established borders from Iraq since what, 1923? There is nothing similar with Palestine. Nothing at all.

This principle has been part of international law since the Kellog Briand pact and it is enshrined in the UN Charter, countless international treaties and countless UN Resolutions. You haven't showed evidence of a single ounce of debate. Even a judge who's been dead for nearly half a century agrees. Next to the prohibition on the use of force, this is possibly the most clear principle of international law.

"even a judge who's been dead for nearly half a century agrees" ??? What if living judges agree with me?

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

What state's territorial integrity did Israel violate?

I'll take that as a "no" then. As to your question, I'll just copy and past the answer I've already given: "As I have said over and over again, I never said that all doesn't mean all. Every time the word "all" is used, it means all."

Good. This of course means "all" acts of belligerency and claims or threats of use of force. So long as we're in agreement here. You weren't clear that this includes the acts of belligerency conducted by Hamas as not only a hostile entity its own, but in connections to numerous States in the area. If all I have to do is plant hostile organizations into non member states to subvert International Law, the law is entirely lame. While it may be convenient in an argument, denying this is irresponsible.

There is nothing nefarious about the legal use of force. You seem to think that if you admit that Israel used force, that you're somehow condemning Israel. Israel clearly used force to take control over the West Bank.

I'm not condemning Israel for anything other than human nature. Who did they take it over from?

DISAGREE. This is where you part company with international lawyers, with the governments of every country on the planet including Israel and the US. What you're saying that the West Bank became part of Israel in 1967. I take it that since you believe that Israel is a democracy, you think that Israel has been guilty of the crime of apartheid for the last 40 years since the people in the West Bank haven't been entitled to a vote in Israel despite the fact that they live in Israel.
Israel does not claim the West Bank to be part of Israel.

Your question was; "Did Israel acquire the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War?"
If "acquisition" is assumed then, yes. Israel acquired the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War. If acquisition is not assumed, then please re-word your question and we'll give it another go.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not giving you anything useful from your loaded questions.

This question was about the International Court of Justice. Your reply isn't related to the question so I'll help you out. The answer is Yes. During the recent ICJ case on the Separation Wall, the International Court of Justice held that Israel is bound to apply Geneva IV in the Occupied Territories.

They didn't stop there; "The Court concludes by stating that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context. In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”. In the Court’s view, the tragic situation in the region can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court further draws the attention of the General Assembly to the “need for . . . efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region”.

"negotiation solution" implies the necessity of two or more parties to come to agreement. The agreement has always been framed as "land for peace". No peace, no land. No land, no peace. This is why the conflict is a never ending story.

However, your answers to questions 10 and 5 are conflictual. If Israel acquired the West Bank in the Six Day War, it cannot be an Occupying Power because an Occupying is necessarily in territory that it has not acquired, that does not belong to it. So you need to explain which of answer 5 and 10 is the one you want to stick with.

Wrong. You need to reword your question in a sensible way. Your question was founded on an "acquisition" assumption. If you don't feel Israel has "acquired" the West Bank, why would you pose the question as; "Did Israel acquire the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War?

Again, I'm not taking your bait. Try again.

DISAGREE. Israel is certainly viable. It has shown a capability to protect its borders.

I believe it is safe, but use of the word "viable" is interesting. In your opinion, there is no concern as long as it is "capable of living". I believe your position in its context, is irresponsible. This also does not take into account that we're discussing the viability of a state in its current condition. You realize its current condition includes rigid security measures. Measures you'd likely find questionable. You tell me if their policies are flawed. The fact that Israel is safe at all is a miracle of technological advancement and discipline.

Its relatively safe compared to most other countries. Its economy is better than most. Its politically more stable than most. Definitely viable in my opinion.

Yet your arguments seem to frame these attributes as worthy of some punitive measure. If you believe they are "viable" today, why change to its detriment? In fact, it should be used as the model for the surrounding territories of those who are not good stewards of their land.

Population Density:
Israel - 324/km²
Gaza Strip - 3750/km²
West Bank - 255/km²
W. Bank + Gaza - 469/km²

The unwillingness of the Arab World to grant Palestinians citizenship is not Israel's problem. You asked whether or not the Palestinians needed more territory. My answer was;

We don't know. They don't know. They couldn't make up their minds when asked and they'd likely not be able to make up their minds today. Offers denied, identities misspelled, mispronounced, and self-determination as important to them as the "refugee problem" was to Arafat and the surrounding Arab countries. The question is, Do they need Jerusalem? Probably not.

You didn't address my answer.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"even a judge who's been dead for nearly half a century agrees" ??? What if living judges agree with me?

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

That judge does NOT agree with you. He said nothing about acquiring territory through the use of force. He said that states that are members of the UN should respect the territorial integrity of other states. Which I fully agree with. But that is not the only principle of international law that exists. There is another principle of international law that holds that " "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal." So, states must respect other states' territorial integrity AND no state can acquire land by the use of force.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your question was; "Did Israel acquire the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War?"
If "acquisition" is assumed then, yes. Israel acquired the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War. If acquisition is not assumed, then please re-word your question and we'll give it another go.

I don't understand what you mean by "if acquisition is assumed"? I asked you the question. Nothing was assumed.

This is really simple - question 5 was "Did Israel acquire the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War?" and question 10 was "In relation to the West Bank, is Israel an "Occupying Power" under the Geneva Conventions?" An "Occupying Power" is defined in the Geneva Conventions as a power that is in control of territory that does not belong to it. If Israel "acquired" the West Bank in 1967, then it cannot be an Occupying Power as that term is defined in the Geneva Conventions today. So, you have two choices. Either you have to say that Israel did not acquire the West Bank in 1967 or you have to say that Israel is not an Occupying Power under the Geneva Conventions. You can't have it both ways.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

So, states must respect other states' territorial integrity AND no state can acquire land by the use of force.

land for peace, peace for land.

I don't understand what you mean by "if acquisition is assumed"? I asked you the question. Nothing was assumed.

I think it's impossible to ask questions like this without assuming something.

This is really simple - question 5 was "Did Israel acquire the West Bank as a result of the Six Day War?" Either you have to say that Israel did not acquire the West Bank in 1967 or you have to say that Israel is not an Occupying Power under the Geneva Conventions.

Your problem is that you truly believe the question is a simple one. No matter how many attempts I see at trying to simplify the ordeal, I see more failure. After all, if it were really this simple it'd be settled by now. No land, no peace. No peace, no land.

Sounds simple, I'll grant you that.

You can't have it both ways.

... and yet they do.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

land for peace, peace for land.

That's not a principle of LAW so has no bearing on your proving that Israel is in legal occupation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your problem is that you truly believe the question is a simple one.

The question is a very, very simple one. I asked you for YOUR opinion. In your legal analysis, did Israel acquire the West Bank in 1967 or is it an Occupying Power under the Geneva Convention?

You answered yes to both questions which makes no sense. If you don't have a view on the nature of Israel's claim to the land, it's impossible for you to comment on the question of the legality of Israel's occupation ... not the least because it's not clear that you even believe that Israel is in occupation!

The idea of the questions was merely to ensure that we both understand some of the basic issues that are involved. They were not leading. What they have revealed is that you don't understand the basics. You don't actually understand the difference between acquiring territory and occupying territory.