Are Israeli Settlements Legal? Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah vs. Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin

[shira]

Transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: Responding to the report by the three-member commission, the Palestinian Fatah party led by President Mahmoud Abbas said the conclusions were, quote, a "farce that mocked and defied the international community."

Well, to talk more about the significance of the commission’s report, we host a debate. In Philadelphia, we’re joined by Jonathan Tobin, senior online editor of Commentary magazine. His latest piece is called "Settlements’ Legality Won’t Prevent Peace." Tobin’s columns have also regularly appeared in the Jerusalem Post and elsewhere. In Chicago, we’re joined by Ali Abunimah, the co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Jonathan Tobin. Jonathan, your response to this Israeli government report saying that the settlements are legal?

more...
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/11/are_israeli_settlements_legal_electronic_intifadas

[The Magistrate]

1. Mr. Tobin Conflates Two Things Here, Ma'am

Last edited Sat Jul 14, 2012, 11:49 PM - Edit history (1)

What makes the settlements illegal is not that Jews live in them, but that land is confiscated for them, and that the Israeli government offers inducements for its citizens to move to them. It is illegal to move your citizens onto occupied territory, and it is illegal to confiscate title to occupied land for anything but very strictly defined purposes of military security. The settlement project is by now clearly a program of colonization in the classic sense of the ancients, and it is that which is not legal under current international law.

[holdencaufield]

2. Confiscated from whom?

"What makes the settlements illegal is not that Jews live in them, but that land is confiscated for them"

The land in questions, the West Bank, was the sovereign territory of Jordan until 1967 when Israel occupied that land during the '67 War. Jordan gave up any claim to that land in the 1980's. So, technically speaking, it is Israeli land.

Because it has always been assumed that some day there would be a Palestinian State on that land, Israel hasn't officially annexed it. However, the intransigence of the Palestinians to negotiate a defensible border and end all conflict with the Jewish State has put that assumption in jeopardy.

The land is not now, nor never has been, indisputably the property of Palestinian Arabs. I would like to see them, someday, negotiate a settlement with Israel and begin building their state. But, until they do, I see no reason why Israel can't use the land that Jordan abandoned for a good purpose.

[The Magistrate]

3. International Law Is Pretty Clear, Sir, And Dates Back More Than a Century In Current Form

A military occupation is required to leave all civil matters as they were. Law in the old English Mandate here was largely Ottoman law baptized, so was Jordanian law, and so is much of present Israeli law in the lands over-run in '67. Military occupation does not give license to void title, nor does it convey title to lands of a former state or other entity sovereign over the area, or void leases or customary rights of usage for such lands, nor does it convey title to un-owned land, or give the right to award un-owned land to the occupying power's citizens. A military occupation does give license for clearing or confiscating land which concerns of immediate security for the garrison can justify ( such as, for example, a zone of some few hundred yards around the perimeter of a military base of the occupying power, to be kept clear of cover, and from which persons are barred any entry ). That is pretty much the limit of what the law allows. It does not matter who or what did or did not own a specific parcel before the occupation commenced; military occupation does not grant the least scintilla of title to it.

As a matter of law, Jordan never held sovereignty over those portions of the Jordan valley it took in 1948, any more than Egypt did over Gaza. The territory was held by military occupation, and nothing more. The last legal sovereign of the area was the United Nations, as heir to the League of Nations, which received the territory at its creation, said territory being under military occupation by England after defeat of the Ottoman Turks, and then turned around and granted to England a Mandate to administer it ( in effect receiving it as a gift and then leasing it back to the donor ). But England no more owned the place than a person with a lease on a house owns the building, and when England relinquished the Mandate, it simply ceased administering territory belonging to the United Nations. The United Nations voted to partition that territory into a Jewish Zone and an Arab Zone. The sovereignty of the State of Israel has replaced any consideration of the United Nations in the designated Jewish Zone, and indeed in all areas west of the '49 Armistice line. In what remains of the Arab Zone created by United Nations partition of the former League of Nations Palestine Mandate, there has been no sovereignty recognized after the Partition, and the last entity to hold such there was the United Nations.

[Bradlad]

6. You seem to disagree with the Levy report.

And so you list some points that you think are relevant. The Levy report listed the points that they think are relevant. I'd say they did a better job of explaining their reasoning than you did. Your comments contain a lot of assertions that I've never seen - i.e they are mostly your personal opinions. But you did a good job of couching them in language that sounds very authoritative.

The fact is, these questions are very complicated and there is no mutually accepted court that has the jurisdiction to settle them. All that's happened is that Israel has now officially joined a one-sided conversation that its enemies have dominated for so long. And because it was, at the very least, a reasonable and considered interpretation, a lot more than the huffing of enraged anti-Israelites is going to be required to refute it - at least among those few remaining in the world who have any sense of fairness in such disputes.

However, I do understand all the angst with Jews standing up for their rights and defending themselves - in this case by simply stating their opinion on a legal question. It seems that never fails to enrage the masses.

And I noticed that while you surely let us know what you think is the only possible "correct way" to interpret the question you didn't even try to explain why the interpretation of the jurists who wrote the Levy Report were wrong. Nor has anyone else here as far as I can tell.

[The Magistrate]

7. Not A Very Impressive Document, Sir: Netanyahu Appointed People To Write What He Wanted To Read

You may forgive my not taking whether you have heard of something or not as being determinative of its validity.

My suggestion would be that you actually put in the work of reading the documents that define rights and duties of a military occupier, commencing with the Hague Convention of 1907, in force when the Mandate was put in place.

There is really not much room for doubt in the matter, though of course a skilled advocate can make a show of justifying just about anything; that is the nature of skill and the art.

Israel came out of the '48 very much to the good, with half the designated Arab Zone tucked away under her sovereignty, a gain of half again what was originally envisioned by the United Nations. It is unseemly to press for the rest...,

[Bradlad]

8. I don't have any problem with your opinions.

But you know what they say about opinions. As far as reading, I am beginning to doubt that you have read the English translation of the Levy Report - at least the part that explains the reasoning. It is based on the premise that Israel's presence there is not a military occupation in the normal sense of the term. Also, I suspect Israel is far more concerned with securing a lasting and believable peace for the safety of its citizens than it is worried about being seen as "unseemly" by internet commenters. Even so, to suggest in your statement that Israel is "pressing for the rest" is very far from a truthful reading of the situation. That false characterization reveals your bias.

As Holden stated clearly below, " The '67 borders aren't defensible. They aren't getting Jerusalem back and they can't be allowed to hold kilometers long stretches of highlands overlooking Israeli cities to be used to shell Israeli civilians. . . until that negotiation is begun in earnest, the settlements remain an effective bargaining chip".

I'd say that's a much better summary of the reality here.

[The Magistrate]

9. It Is A Military Occupation, Sir

The Levy reasoning is what is, or at least used to be, known as pettifogging. The only categories available in law are occupation or sovereignty. The land in question was outside the borders of Israel prior to June of 1967, and came under Israeli control due to military success. It does not matter one whit whether anyone else had legitimate sovereignty over the land; Israel certainly did not have legitimate sovereignty over it, and does not gain sovereignty by military conquest; that is certainly barred by law in place at the time, and presently. There is no legitimate ground Israel can cite for maintaining authority in the area in question save the recognized right of military occupation. That the settlement project, however it may have begun, is now an exercise in colonization in the original sense of the ancients is obvious to anyone who gives the thing a clear-eyed look. The settler's movement is every bit as devoted to the slogan 'one land between the river and the sea' as Hamas, it simply has a different idea of who should be there once that is achieved.

[Bradlad]

10. Yes

The only categories available in law are occupation or sovereignty.

Right now Israel holds effective sovereignty - although it has given partial autonomy to the Palestinians. Israel wants to give full sovereignty in the form of recognized statehood to the Palestinians in exchange for negotiated borders and assurance of Israeli security.

To be exact though occupation normally refers to one state entity occupying the territory of another state entity as the result of war. This territory is stateless and there are international documents that have not been rescinded or superseded that give the Jews just as much right to be living there as the Arabs, in some cases even more right.

But, when all is said and done, neither you nor I are international jurists or scholars and what we think about it is not very relevant to the question of legality. I'm willing to admit that and not pretend to be some kind expert on these things.

My point is that the argument that the territory is actually "disputed" rather than "occupied" seems to have some merit and is worth considering. It may even hold some hope for a resolution in that as long as the Palestinians (the majority) believe that there is hope to destroy Israel they will assassinate any leader who settles for less. Obama's errors have done a lot to put them in that mind set. Perhaps if the West gives a fair hearing to the Levy Report - and agrees it has some merit, without actually endorsing it - that just might bring things back to a more realistic perspective. Maybe even give Abbas enough cover to negotiate and settle this thing. I know its a long shot but at least its a step in the right direction.

[The Magistrate]

11. The Argument Has No Merit Whatever, Sir, And Israel Does Not Hold Legal Sovereignty

The 'Levy Report' is not worth the paper it is printed on as a legal document, it is not even a particularly good defense brief.

Your claim that "Obama's errors have done a lot to put them in that mind set' in reference to a wide-spread desire among Arab Palestinians to destroy Israel is laughable, although it suggests a thing or two about you and your views regarding politics in the United States, none of them particularly savory. The statement is analogous to asserting that painting on a racing stripe is what makes the automobile go fast....

[Bradlad]

15. In my comment . .

I said Israel held effective sovereignty. This was the result of no-one else offering to take it when Israel offered it after Israel kicked the Jordanians out. "Occupation" is another thing entirely - except for those who try any trick to delegitimize Jews defending themselves from attack - in which case it can acquire a whole new meaning. I'd think someone as schooled in the law as you try to appear would at least be able to read adjectives in a document you are criticizing. Effective means in this case de facto. If you disagree then what other entity would you claim holds effective sovereignty in that stateless disputed territory, if not Israel?

Just out of curiosity, what law school was that you graduated from? And where was your most significant work done in the field of international law? Just international, no need to get into all the rest.

[The Magistrate]

17. Israel Is Engaged In Military Occupation, Sir, Of Territory It Had, And Has, No Sovereignty Over

There is nothing wrong with military occupation, it is a perfectly legitimate and time-honored practice. Military occupation does, however, enjoin certain duties on the occupier, and restrain the occupier from certain actions. Israel has not, during the period it has exercised military occupation of these areas in the Jordan valley, wholly conformed its behavior to these boundaries. The Levy paper is simply an attempt to retroactively justify these failures to abide by existing rules, and set ground-work for going even further beyond the well-established boundaries. It is not a legal but a political document, intended to validate the Likud program for areas on the other side of the '49 Armistice line, and provide talking points for people who want to argue in favor of Likud's program.

What interests me far more is your claim that "Obama's errors have done a lot to put them in that mind set' in reference to a wide-spread desire among Arab Palestinians to destroy Israel. It suggests a thing or two about you and your views regarding politics in the United States, none of them particularly savory, and all of which, given your evident loyalty to the Likud view of this matter, need to be borne in mind.

[Bradlad]

21. Wow!

What interests me far more is your claim that "Obama's errors have done a lot to put them in that mind set' in reference to a wide-spread desire among Arab Palestinians to destroy Israel. It suggests a thing or two about you and your views regarding politics in the United States, none of them particularly savory, and all of which, given your evident loyalty to the Likud view of this matter, need to be borne in mind.

Would you like to discuss my assertion about Obama's errors? I didn't think so. Besides, there's a pretty good WaPo article today that spells them out better than I could. Where Obama Failed on Middle East Policy

But your interest in my supposed "Likud loyalties"? Now there's a good one. Sorry to disappoint but I find arguing politics a demeaning waste of time. Especially the politics of other nations in which I have even less interest in than my own. Still, I call myself a liberal, though certainly not a progressive. I do vote in every election although more out of a sense of civic duty than enthusiasm. But I think you'd be quite disappointed searching for a single Republican vote for president in my voting record - which starts with Kennedy and includes Obama. I mean, I am not a Republican pretending to be someone else if that's what you're getting at. We just disagree about something. And I think you'd find a lot of democrats who agree with my views.

BTW, I enjoy the good rhetorical brawl now and then and try to give as good as I get. But I don't really take it so seriously that I develop a personal dislike of whoever I'm giving to and taking from. If that happens I just don't reply. So if it makes any difference to you, as long as I reply to your comments (when one is useful), I consider it all in good sport, even though I try to be as honest in my "sport" as I can about what I believe.

EDIT: I deleted the previous last sentence to my comment as I think I've sufficiently made my point.

[The Magistrate]

22. That Article, Sir, Does Not Remotely Support Your Claim

Your claim is that "Obama's errors have done a lot to put them in that mind set' in reference to a wide-spread desire among Arab Palestinians to destroy Israel. And Indeed, making that claim suggests a thing or two about you and your views regarding politics in the United States, none of them particularly savory, and all of which, given your evident loyalty to the Likud view of this matter, need to be borne in mind. You can disavow that all you please: it will make no more difference to me than whether or not you like me....

"I don't want the world...I just want your half...."

[Bradlad]

23. Hidden in your deflection about "loyalty" . .

is the germ of a good discussion. Since you keep bringing it up you must have some interest it. Then again maybe it's just all personal.

But, you have the habit like several others here, of making extremely forceful assertions while providing no factual basis for them. Now, would you really like to have this discussion? Do you actually believe that the Palestinians, if given a choice between having Israel destroyed (by some Islamic regime) and it's remaining Jews deported elsewhere - or accepting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state in some form of a guaranteed peace where they could never attack Israel again - that they'd accept the latter?

If you respond, try to stay away from the personal stuff. I'm really interested in the quality of your ideas.

Added: Oh. And saying I don't dislike you does not mean that I like you. And who cares about that crap? It's even less interesting than politics AFAIC.

[The Magistrate]

24. When You Have Reviewed The 1907 Hague Convention, Sir, Try 'The Blind Men And The Elephant'...

"I'm going home now. Someone bring me some frogs and some bourbon."

[Bradlad]

25. Your comment . .

Your comment in this case is a "quip" without substance. It contains no ideas at all. I was hoping there'd be some substance behind all the feigned wisdom. Is it that answering my hypothetical and explaining your answer would cinch the matter?

[sabbat hunter]

65. would you agree that

Jerusalem should not be a part of a future Palestine? After all it was not supposed to be part of one under any partition plan (nor for Israel) but instead UN held territory.
I would argue that by failing to defend it against Jordanian forces (or forcing Jordan to leave between the years 49-67) that the UN has abrogated their rights to rule over it.
Instead I argue that Jerusalem should remain under Israeli political control, while the various religions control their holy sites (in effect status quo for it)

[shaayecanaan]

35. You would concede that none of this applies to Israel's settlements in Syrian territory?

After all, there are multiple Security Council resolutions to the effect that the Golan Heights remain Syrian territory.

[Bradlad]

37. Well . .

Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:11 AM - Edit history (6)

there seems to be two forks here (that's a lawyerly term I picked up on the interwebs) on which the question can be stuck. One, are settlements being established in "occupied terrirory" which are subject to 4GC rules - or two, is it simply immigration of civilians into territory that is not "occupied" in the legal sense.

I don't pretend to be any kind of an expert on these things but it seems to me that the Levy Report makes some reasonable points in favor of seeing Israel's presence on the WB as not an "occupation" - but establishing a presence on land that Jews have every right to settle on - and therefore not subject to 4GC. There has never been a legal sovereign on that land since the Brits left in 1947. So there is no state and no army which would also be subject to 4GC rules from which the settlements were taken. (There are more points in favor of that view but I won't list them here.)

But I agree that until Israel annexes or vacates the Syrian territory it occupies, it is subject to 4GC rules there. However, Israel did not force it's civilians to locate there and so is not violating 4GC even though it is subject to its rules.

Here's how I see it: When people start wars of aggression and don't win them and then refuse to sign a treaty so that people can get on with their lives knowing where the national boundaries lie - then I guess Israel sees some justification in allowing its civilians to farm and settle that land that it occupies. 4GC does not prohibit voluntary immigration - it only prohibits forced transfer of the occupying power's populations into the occupied area.

I'd say Israel doesn't believe there will be a treaty with Syria in the foreseeable future and therefore has decided to treat the land as if it were part of Israel since they are already occupying it, pending some better resolution - or perhaps annexation at some time in the future if enough time has passed without a treaty. But having friendly civilians there makes the job of the occupation forces easier. It provides a local food source, friendly locals and more eyes for watching for potential enemy incursions and preparation for attack.

I think by reversing the view it becomes easier to comprehend. Israel was attacked from the Golan heights in a war that Israel did not start. Israel kicked the Syrian army off the heights. Syria refuses to sign a treaty or agree not to attack Israel again if they get chance. In fact they say that they will attack Israel if they get the chance and have tried to do so. Meanwhile 45 years have gone by without any change in outlook by Syria. So, would any fair person expect Israel to tell its own civilians that they can't settle and farm there out of some concern for not upsetting Syrian sensibilities? International law does not prohibit occupation BTW. I can see why Israel allows their civilians to settle and farm there.

Added: Even if Israel were occupying the WB in the legal sense, which many here believe to be the case - Israel did not forcibly transfer it's population there to build settlements. They moved in voluntarily. Friendly locals are a benefit to an occupying power and so I'd have the same view of WB settlement by Israelis as I do of the Golan. And the same precipitating factors underlie the "occupation". A long term refusal of the Arabs to negotiate a peace treaty and final borders, repeated attacks coming from the area requiring defensive military presence, etc.

One more thing: Magistrate's assertion that "when the Israeli government provides inducements to such action, then it becomes a program of settling citizens on land under military occupation, and this is not legal." is unfounded. No where in 4GC Article 49 does it mention anything about "inducements" or say that an occupying power's citizens may not voluntarily settle on land under military occupation - as long as they respect the laws of the occupied state that were in existence before the occupation. It says that occupying powers can not transfer their civilians onto that land - as Germany did into Poland in WWII. At best, one can say that the words of Article 49 regarding this are ambiguous (which I don't think they are) but in that case the rule would be unenforceable anyway.

[shira]

38. Our debate opponents here refuse to see the difference b/w Syria & the WB....

...WRT the Geneva 4th Convention.

They also refuse to distinguish between a country like Germany forcefully transporting its citizens into Poland and Israelis voluntarily moving into "occupied" territories.

"You cannot awaken someone who pretends to be sleeping".

[Bradlad]

39. Yes

I think some of our opponents fit the description that pelsar has provided: they start with the unshakable belief that Israel must be acing illegally, immorally, whatever and in every situation - and then try like hell to fill in the blanks.

[shaayecanaan]

41. So in other words, if I offer $10,000 for the murder of X

and someone agrees to do it, and I provide him with a gun and give him the directions to X's house, I am not guilty of murder.

After all, I haven't forced anyone to do anything. I have merely offered inducements.

[Bradlad]

42. Yes, in that case . .

you are guilty of murder.

But if you offer someone $10,000 to build a house on unused land that is part of a stateless territory that you have control of and wish to see put to good use then you are not guilty of murder. You are guilty of land development.

Actually, you asked a very good question that forces a critical analysis of one's beliefs about this conflict on several levels. It got me to read (or reread) several articles. My views are evolving a bit. I'm not sure where I'll end up but I don't think it will be where I was when I wrote #37 this morning. I'm working on it.

[shaayecanaan]

43. unless of course you are in occupied Syrian territory...

in which case not much can be made of the "stateless territory" argument.

Do you accept that Article 46 of 4GC prevents Israel from expelling any Syrian from the Golan Heights?

[Bradlad]

44. Article 46

. . as I understand deals with restrictive measures that can be legally applied to protected persons during or after the close of hostilities. I'm not sure expulsion is a legal "restrictive measure" in any case but if it was legal during hostilities for some reason it would not be legal after hostilities end.

However, I also believe that rejection of an offer to exchange sovereignty for peace means that Syria, who claims sovereignty but lacks it on the Golan, by rejecting peace ensures that a hostile state still exists. Certainly there is a reasonable expectation that if Israel were to vacate without a treaty that the rockets and howitzers would be firing from the Heights within a day or two. With a treaty maybe a month or two.

[shaayecanaan]

45. You're almost getting into "Yes Minister" territory there Brad...

not that you probably understand that reference, but I do.

Its a simple question, does the Fourth Geneva Convention prevent Israel from expelling Syrians from Syrian territory or not?

[Bradlad]

46. Article 46

Art. 46. In so far as they have not been previously withdrawn, restrictive measures taken regarding protected persons shall be cancelled as soon as possible after the close of hostilities.

Restrictive measures affecting their property shall be cancelled, in accordance with the law of the Detaining Power, as soon as possible after the close of hostilities.

As I said I believe there is an existing state of hostility and therefore what ever is legal during hostilities applies. It's not that difficult.

[shaayecanaan]

47. My apologies, Brad...

I had meant to refer to Article 49:-

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

You would agree, per the above, that Israel would not be allowed to deport Syrians outside the occupied Golan Heights?

[Bradlad]

48. Your question is still confusing.

You highlight a sentence that discusses evacuations and that describes an exception: . . except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.

Then you ask me to agree to an interpretation of the Article concerning deportations that does not include the exception you highlighted.

Try again to frame your question.

Added: Maybe your highlighting was not relevant to your question. But it makes me think one of us is confused. Could be me.

[shaayecanaan]

49. Article 49 refers to forced deportations...

it states, broadly, that the occupying power shall not deport people out of the territory that it occupies. In particular, it states that it shall not deport people out of occupied territory into the non-occupied territory of a particular state unless there is the need for an evacuation due to safety concerns, and in such an instance the occupying power shall allow people to return as soon as possible.

Do you think that it is permissible for Israel to deport or expel a Syrian from the occupied Golan Heights? I apologise if this is a confusing question, I am trying to frame it as directly as possible.

[Bradlad]

50. No. I believe that is prohibited by Article 49. n/t

[Bradlad]

52. Here's one for you.

Let's say a brutal dictator who runs an African state has let loose his military to kill or expel parts of his civilian population that has a different ethnic heritage from his ruling party that now dominates the nation. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed and many more than that have been wounded including a high percentage of the old, women and children. The dictator has prevented any medical care from reaching them. A neighboring democratic state is being flooded with refugees and with the UN completely jammed up with new resolutions on Israel's crimes against humanity - has decided to intervene. It sends in its army which quickly gains control of enough territory to defend large parts of the civilian population that was under attack.

Does the democratic state violate the last paragraph of Article 49 if it encourages medical personal from its civilian ranks to enter the territory under protection of its military to provide medical care for the sick and wounded?

For reference: Article 49, last paragraph: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

[shaayecanaan]

59. Its an interesting question...

perhaps a more topical example are all the civilian contractors that followed in the wakes of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, those people went there at the behest of the American government.

However, I do not think that the civilian contractors amount to a transfer of the American civilian population to Iraq. I think "transfer" in this instance means that people are relocating their main place of residence from the territory of the occupying power to the occupied territory.

You also have to look at the purposive intent of the article. It is meant to deal with those instances such as the Golan Heights or Northern Cyprus where the occupying power transfers people in order to change the demographics of the area and cement their entitlement to the land.

I doubt that those various contractors have ever considered that they were considering Iraq or Afghanistan their new home. So, while its an interesting question, I think that my answer is "no".

[Bradlad]

62. And that's an interesting answer.

Let's summarize where we stand. You started in #41 with a claim that inducing someone to immigrate is the same as transferring them. You were saying I believe that Israel had violated 4GC-49 because they had induced them. You stated

So in other words, if I offer $10,000 for the murder of X and someone agrees to do it, and I provide him with a gun and give him the directions to X's house, I am not guilty of murder. After all, I haven't forced anyone to do anything. I have merely offered inducements.

Then you switched over to the application of the rule wrt Israel's occupation of the Golan - except we had the confusion about Article 46 vs 49. But in that case you were concerned with deportation, not (induced) immigration. That ended with me saying,

I believe that (deportation of Syrian civilians from the Golan) is prohibited by Article 49.

I then offered a hypothetical about a democracy's doctors being induced to "transfer" to territory under military occupation. You said that wasn't prohibited because the doctors were not moving there, just on temporary assignment. You said,

. . "transfer" in this instance means that people are relocating their main place of residence from the territory of the occupying power to the occupied territory.

So where do I stand? To make this easier to read I'll put the rest of my response in the next comment:

[Bradlad]

63. The rest of my answer:

Let me insert this for reference before going on: Art 49, para 6: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

At this point, I think this is my position:

There are two kinds of evidence available to discover what the cryptic words of paragraph 6 mean, or were intended to mean. What the authors did say about it and what they did not say. Let's start with what they did not say, but easily could have.

They did not say: The Occupying Power shall not deport, transfer or allow civilian members of their population to establish permanent residence in the territory it occupies.

I think a good argument could be made that if that's what the authors intended, that's what they would have said - or something very close to that. If they had there would be no need for this discussion today and there be no need for a Levy Report.

As for what they did say, have you read the official commentary? On that article the paragraph that applies to our discussion is this:

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

So it is reasonable IMO to ask if the purpose of Israeli immigration into the "occupied" territory (assuming for sake of argument that it is actually occupied) - was for the purpose of politically or racially oppressing the native population, of worsening their economic situation and endangered their separate existence as a race. Also, to ask if the occupiers intended to colonize the territory.

First, regarding colonization: I realize some pro-Palestinians have adopted "colonize" to mean any immigration of people of one ethnicity into an area where there is a different majority ethnicity. On its face that's an absurd definition since it would preclude the rightful citizenship of 90% or more of the populations of all democratic states. Would those using this definition - like Kayecy - insist that Mexicans or Vietnamese should not be allowed to immigrate to the US? I am certain that the authors of 4GC meant colonization in the classic sense where an occupying power economically enslaves the indigenous population in order to extract resources at the lowest cost. Nothing like that has happened in the territories. In fact, civilian immigration is almost never a part of classic colonialism where some civilians come temporarily as bureaucrats and business operators -but almost never settling permanently with their families (which fits better with the exceptions you are comfortable with.)

Since Israel has the resources and military might to easily cause such "worsening of the Palestinian economic situation" and "endangering their separate existence as a race" it is reasonable to ask if there is any evidence available from the 45 year long period of "occupation" that this was Israel's purpose or goal in "inducing" the settlement project. Since, under Israeli control, the Palestinian standard of living, mortality index, education level, etc. has far outstripped every one of their Arab neighbor states I think it would be hard to make that case. Also, their population has grown vigorously. Even Palestinians killed in armed confrontations with the IDF are minuscule compared to their natural population growth and with with almost any similar situation in history.

OTOH there is tons of evidence that Israel is allowing immigration into a territory that they control mainly because that population had legally settled there previously and was illegally ethnically cleansed from those territories in 1948. Israel is correcting the effects of a crime against humanity that was perpetrated against the Jews who had lived in the area for centuries in small numbers as well as the larger numbers who had legally immigrated in the 20th century. Israel is responding democratically to the demands of their population to correct that wrong. To tell the Palestinians that if they can not come to terms with living in peace with Israel then they will have to accept Jews returning to the land they once lived in and share it with them under Israeli rules. I realize that's a hard pill to swallow for the Palestinians - but so are never-ending attacks against Israeli citizens for Israelis. The Palestinians have had it in their power to end the attacks and make peace for 45 years.

Since the commentary on 4GC-Art 49 emphasizes the humanitarian effect on the population of civilians as the over-riding consideration of the 4GC, if it comes down to a decision between supporting the wishes of those civilians who hate a particular ethnicity and want to expell or kill them to retain an ethnic / religious "purity" in their own environment - or those civilians who want to allow all ethnicities to have the same opportunities to settle and live in a stateless territory where both groups have historic roots and a legal claim to do so - I'd go with the latter and say that Israeli civilian immigration and settlement in the territories does not violate Article 49.

[shaayecanaan]

64. I'm not sure that you're being consistent, Brad...

Last edited Wed Jul 18, 2012, 08:40 PM - Edit history (1)

They did not say: The Occupying Power shall not deport, transfer or allow civilian members of their population to establish permanent residence in the territory it occupies.

I think a good argument could be made that if that's what the authors intended, that's what they would have said - or something very close to that.

Well, Brad, by the same token, they didn't say "forcibly deport or transfer" - but that is the interpretation that you have given to that particular article.

I am simply interpreting the text as it is written. If I visit the Bahamas for two weeks, I do not consider myself as having "transferred" there. I would only consider it so if I was relocating to the Bahamas permanently or semi-permanently.

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

The reference in the commentary refers primarily to the German colonisation of Poznan during World War II, when Hitler encouraged German settlement there after most of the Poles either fled or were expelled. It is worth noting, contra your earlier arguments, that Hitler did not force Germans to move there.

First, regarding colonization: I realize some pro-Palestinians have adopted "colonize" to mean any immigration of people of one ethnicity into an area where there is a different majority ethnicity...I am certain that the authors of 4GC meant colonization in the classic sense where an occupying power economically enslaves the indigenous population in order to extract resources at the lowest cost. Nothing like that has happened in the territories.

I think the authors of 4GC meant "colonisation" as it is ordinarily defined:-

From the Oxford dictionary:

1) send settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it:

2) settle among and establish control over (the indigenous people of an area):

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/colonize

I don't think there is any requirement that the native population be enslaved in order for colonisation to be present. Neither is there a requirement that the standard of living of the native people is required to decline for colonisation to exist. The standard of living of Native Americans has probably increased since the white colonisation of the Americas, but that does not mean that the whites' colonisation was not colonisation. I think you may be grasping at straws here.

OTOH there is tons of evidence that Israel is allowing immigration into a territory that they control mainly because that population had legally settled there previously and was illegally ethnically cleansed from those territories in 1948. Israel is correcting the effects of a crime against humanity that was perpetrated against the Jews who had lived in the area for centuries in small numbers as well as the larger numbers who had legally immigrated in the 20th century.

The West Bank never had a significant Jewish population in modern times (ie, since the 4th century AD). In the 20th century, there were two small Jewish populations - one at Gush Etzion, and one at Hebron. Together, they amounted to several hundred people. The Jewish presence in Hebron dates from about 1523, and Etzion from about 1940.

The Jews in Hebron were withdrawn by the British in 1936. The Jews in Etzion remained and began attacking Arab convoys destined for Jerusalem. Unwisely, they also began attacking British convoys, who by that stage were committed to withdrawing anyway.

The Jordanian Arab Legion, which was led by Pasha Glubb and other British officers and had endeavoured to refrain from the fighting, was sufficiently incensed by this that they agreed to attack Etzion in tandem with Palestinian irregulars in the area. The Etzion fighters gave some spirited resistance but fell within the day. A large number of Etzion fighters were then massacred by the Palestinian irregulars before the Arab Legion could establish control. The remaining kibbutzim were held as prisoners of war as part of a later exchange.

Now, you can define that as "ethnic cleansing" if you like, but you'd probably have to acknowledge that killings and expulsions of Arabs by Jews happened on a far greater scale.

[Bradlad]

66. I think you're being very consistent.

Last edited Thu Jul 19, 2012, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

It seems there is nothing the Jews can do that you do not deem a crime. I'm too busy right now to spend much time on a reply. But a couple of paragraphs kind of jumped out at me:

The West Bank never had a significant Jewish population in modern times (ie, since the 4th century AD). In the 20th century, there were two small Jewish populations - one at Gush Etzion, and one at Hebron. Together, they amounted to several hundred people. The Jewish presence in Hebron dates from about 1523, and Etzion from about 1940.

So paraphrasing your argument: What's the big deal? It's just a little ethnic cleansing - a few hundred at best. And after all they were Jews trying to settle in places where the Arabs wanted to have a "no Jews allowed policy" - i.e. the Middle East - even if Jews had lived there in small numbers for centuries. Isn't it understandable that they should be "withdrawn" by the Brits?

I guess to for some, a little ethnic cleansing of Jews is all very understandable.

BTW one of many similar reasons for the paltry number of Jews in the area were events like this:

The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs[1] in Jerusalem and seizing control of Muslim holy places. This massacre, together with that of Safed, sent shock waves through Jewish communities in Palestine and across the world.
During the massacre, 67 Jews were killed and Jewish homes and synagogues were ransacked; nineteen local Arab families saved 435 Jews by hiding them in their houses at great risk to themselves.[2][3] The survivors were evacuated from Hebron by the British authorities. Many returned in 1931, but almost all left again during 1936–1939.[4] It also led to the re-organization and development of the Jewish paramilitary organization, the Haganah, which later became the nucleus of the Israel Defense Forces.

Now, you can define that as "ethnic cleansing" if you like, but you'd probably have to acknowledge that killings and expulsions of Arabs by Jews happened on a far greater scale.

No, I don't acknowledge that at all. You're being consistent again, making no attempt at all to be objective or even-handed. First, I was referring the Jordanian,Syrian and Egyptian armies ethnically cleansing the WB, Gaza and the Golan of Jews in 1948-9 - which is the ethnic cleansing that was being corrected by the settlements, post-'67.

But for you the Jews are always the criminals and the Arabs are the poor victims. You have many techniques - in this case by selectively isolating time periods, conflating actual wars and violent insurrections with the other periods. You'd come across as more credible if you actually were trying to discuss the reality of the times as seen by both sides of the conflict. No matter what you say there remains the basic reality. Jews have a legal right in international agreements and declarations going back many years that have never been rescinded to settle the WB. The world has a moral obligation to acknowledge that right. The Arabs should not be able to abbrogate that right by perpetuating forever a conflict that Israel has offered repeatedly to end with a peace treaty as demanded by UNSCR242.

The UN has a legal obligation to defend the Jews from attack as they have started no wars with the Arabs - a defense the UN as well as its most powerful western members have never undertaken. Instead they condemn Israel for defending itself from those attacks.

[shaayecanaan]

67. I think you're starting to lose the plot, Brad...

No, I don't acknowledge that at all. You're being consistent again, making no attempt at all to be objective or even-handed. First, I was referring the Jordanian,Syrian and Egyptian armies ethnically cleansing the WB, Gaza and the Golan of Jews in 1948-9 - which is the ethnic cleansing that was being corrected by the settlements, post-'67.

That's simply incorrect, Brad. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory. It was never part of Palestine, and therefore Jews never settled there until 1967 when it was occupied by Israel. Certainly there were Jews living in Syria, but they were traders mainly in Damascus and the larger city centres, not farmers in the Golan.

And as I pointed out to you, the British evacuated the Jews from Hebron in 1929. That left the small community in Etzion, which was seized by the Arab Legion only after repeated attacks by the kibbutzim on both Arab and British convoys. Apparently self defence is not a prerogative to which Arabs are entitled in your worldview.

[Bradlad]

68. I think the plot is easily visible to anyone . .

including the one or two diehards who may still be following this thread. It's that one side in this conflict over control of territory - that is common throughout history and is part of human nature - has always tried to follow international norms and rules to reach a fair and peaceful resolution. The other has reveled in racist based violence and murder to get their way rejecting all international efforts to find compromise. One side has always used violence only when necessary in its defense (with very few exceptions) over many decades. The other has preferred violence and has kept it going relentlessly until it has become its way of life - which it glorifies. One side goes to great lengths and expense, exposing its soldiers to greater danger, to minimize collateral damage in the defensive war it is forced to wage while the other brags of the deaths of the innocent men, women and children who they purposely target.

And yet, in any discussion with you the Arabs are always innocent victims of Israeli "aggression" - a complete and disgusting inversion of reality that should turn the stomach of any true liberal. In your comments you are simply an advocate for the Arab team that commits these atrocities. You have no interest in discussing the pros and cons of conflicting views or understanding the complex history and other factors that drive the conflict. I don't begrudge you all that but I think you need to find a player who enjoys rhetorical combat more than I do. I find it demeaning to the memory of the many innocents who have died on both sides of this conflict.

I have no more time to indulge you you on this. I suggest you read Shaktiman's comment this morning which says very well what needs to be said. He has a writing style that I believe gets his points across much more clearly than I do and this comment is good example. Enjoy.

[shaayecanaan]

69. Goodbye, Brad (nt)

[shira]

16. The Palestinians don't have legal sovereignty either. And Jews do have rights to settlement...

....as per LoN rulings, and later the UN, which adopted LoN rulings.

The 1948 green line is an armistice line, not a border. That was made very clear at the time.

Jordan's ethnic cleansing of all Jews b/w 1948-67 in that area (before that, Jews had lived there thousands of years) is not a legal basis for Palestinian sovereignty over all historic Judea/Samaria. Nor can ethnic cleansing be used legally to deny Jewish settlement in that area.

Oslo stipulates settlement building can continue in area 'C', so it is not a violation of Oslo. Not only did the PLO agree to this, but so did the USA, UK, France, the EU, Russia, Egypt, and Jordan. Since all these signatories to Oslo agreed Israel could still build in area 'C', what does that say about the illegality of settlement building according to International Law? Besides, Israel went beyond Oslo just shortly after and stopped building NEW settlements; instead choosing only to build within EXISTING settlement blocs. There have been no new settlements outside existing blocs since the mid 90's.

Almost all settlements are on public state land, not privately owned (Palestinian) land.

========

Legal or not, Israel has already agreed to a Palestinian state based on negotiated land swaps. Israel has already agreed to dismantle settlements for peace. The biggest issue, and Tobin for all his rightwingery is right about this one, is that the Palestinians consider ALL Israel to be a settlement. From Tel Aviv to Haifa, to Eilat. THAT is the main obstacle to peace, not settlements.

[The Magistrate]

19. The Point You Are Missing, Ma'am

Is the difference between the action of individuals and the action of a government. No one, at least no one worth listening to, disputes that a Jew has the right to move to a place on the far side of the Armistice line, and dwell on ground to which title has been gained by purchase or gift. However, when the Israeli government provides inducements to such action, then it becomes a program of settling citizens on land under military occupation, and this is not legal. It was not legal when it began, and it remains illegal today. Now certainly a lot of things that are illegal are and have been done, and many of them are accepted as facts of life, all over the globe: China's occupation and colonization of Tibet comes to mind, as does the means by which the Sri Lankan government liquidated the Tamil Tigers, and the Indian conquest and absorption of Goa. To state a thing is a violation of law is more in the nature of a statement in taxonomy than anything, so long as it remains a fact, come to cases, it remains force that decides what is or is not done. If there is something that smacks of 'The law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike to beg in the streets, to sleep under bridges, and to steal bread,' well, that seems to be inherent to the nature of the world and human society.

Just as a friendly note, though, wisest not to brandish too energetically expulsions of Jews from the area by Jordan; the riposte can be pretty harsh....

[shira]

29. Israeli govt inducements for Israelis to live beyond the green line is not forceful transfer....

....or an attempt to displace Palestinians by any stretch of the imagination.

And if settlements are illegal, all the signatories to Oslo sure had a funny way of making that clear. The USA, UK, France, EU, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO gave Israel a green light to carry on with the settlement enterprise. It was Israel, who shortly after, promised not to build new settlements. A promise they've kept since that time.

[aranthus]

18. Yes and no.

I think that the Palestinians do believe that the settlements are illegitimate precisely because Jews live in them. Just as they believe that Israel is illegitimate because it is Jewish and not Arab/Muslim. And certainly Palestinian propaganda has tried to inject that belief into the legality debate. So Tobin and Israel aren't wrong for stressing that Jews have the right to live in the West Bank.

Second, if the territory is occupied, that presumes that it is someone else's sovereign territory. Otherwise, it's Israeli territory. Except that presumption isn't fair or real in this case. As Tobin points out, the last accepted (fictitious) sovereign was the League of Nations (or possibly the UN). The last real sovereign was the UK, which ruled by right of conquest. Either way, the sovereign wasn't the local Arabs or Jews, or any Arab state. Jordan has formally renounced its purported claim. The local Arabs have a claim to sovereignty, but that is not only not exclusive, it probably isn't as good as the Israeli claim anyway.

Third, because the Jews have a right to live in the West Bank, and because the area is part of the ancient Jewish homeland, the settlement project absolutely is not colonization.

The legal problem is whether Israel can carve up the West Bank piecemeal and incorporate the parts under Israeli sovereignty without offering the Arabs citizenship. But that is different from whether the Jews have a legal right to live in the West Bank or whether Israel has the right to annex it. They do, and Israel does.

[The Magistrate]

20. Military Occupation Does Not Presume A State's Prior Sovereignty, Nor Is That Necessary For It

All that is necessary is that the area not be part of the sovereign territory of the power in occupation, and that iyt have come into possession of the occupying power by exercise of military force. Nowadays no power has the legal right to annex territory acquired by exercise of military force.

Colonization in the ancient sense is exactly what is going on the area. People have grown accustomed to taking the term colony as meaning an entity held subject by a foreign power for economic exploitation, but the ancient usage of the term was the settling of an area with people of one's own land, establishing a political entity that would work in concert with, or be part of, the founding country. If you do not see the aptness of this to the settlement project, there si little ;ppint in discussing the matter further with you.

[Swede]

4. Shira,I am 100% behind Israel,you can tell by my posts here. The settlements need to be dismantled.

The Westbank is Palestine of the future,when we can trust them. We cannot build on their land.

[holdencaufield]

5. They need to negotiate...

... for "their land". The '67 borders aren't defensible. They aren't getting Jerusalem back and they can't be allowed to hold kilometers long stretches of highlands overlooking Israeli cities to be used to shell Israeli civilians. Imagine what would be happening right now if Gaza was situated on the high ground over-looking a city like Tel Aviv.

When they negotiate in good faith, settlements will be dismantled on any land deemed to be part of the Palestinian state. We know this because this is precisely what happened in Gaza because, G-d forbid, they can't have a single Jew living in their new state.

But, until that negotiation is begun in earnest, the settlements remain an effective bargaining chip. And, if they hold out forever, there eventually won't be anything left for which to bargain. Time is NOT on the Arab Palestinian's side -- I hope they realise that sooner rather than later.

[shaayecanaan]

33. The current borders are no more or no less defensible than the 1967 borders...

the most impressive performance by an Arab army was Egypt in 1973, despite the fact that Egypt was forced to start from the Suez canal and needed to cross the Sinai, and whether Israel accepts a peace with the Palestinians or not, the State of Israel will still be about 6 miles wide at its narrowest point.

The settlements don't change the borders of Israel in ways that are strategically significant, particularly when you consider that most wars are fought from the air, and the Palestinians have already agreed for Israel to be able to install early warning stations near the boundary with Jordan.

[Scootaloo]

56. Nor is time on Israel's side

If they really want a two-state solution, the government of Israel is going to have to figure out that they can't continue demanding more land cessions. They can't have their cake and eat it, too, basically.

Of course, the government of Israel is not interested in a two-state solution, any more than the likes of you here in the US are.

Unfortunately neither you nor that government you revere as god himself seem to have the foresight enough to realize the inevitable ending to this farce; Israel will indeed stretch from water to water, but the Palestinians will still be there. Either Israel will have to accept the 21st century reality that no state is entitled towards cultural / ethnic purity and will become an Arab-Majority state with a sizable Jewish population, or the whole place is going to catch fire and make 1980's Lebanon look like a prime vacation spot.

I'm certain that you, like most American supporters of Israel, are hoping for the latter. for all my criticism of the government of Israel however, I have a suspicion that they aren't so inclined.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Agreed

[Bradlad]

26. Why?

Because you believe the Palestinians would accept peace then? How do you explain Hamas/Gaza? That was pretty much the perfect test case you know.

[shaayecanaan]

34. No...

The problem for Israel is that sooner or later, they will lose the Europeans. The only reason they havent done so already is because Arabs and Muslims are politically toxic in today's Europe, and possibly to some extent because of lingering guilt about the holocaust.

Within a couple of generations, the Arabs in Europe will be accepted in the same way that all waves of migrants are eventually. They will eventually figure out how to lobby effectively, in the same way that US Jews have learned the same.

By that time, Israeli Arabs will constitute 30 to 35% of the Israeli population. Israel will either have to permit additional Arab housing to be built - which they havent done to date - or Arabs will increasingly move into Jewish areas, as is already the case in Nazareth already. Israel can either respond to that in either a progressive or reactionary fashion. The latter looks increasingly likely.

[Shaktimaan]

51. because there is no other possibility.

Israel has two options in the event it chooses to keep the territories. It can allow the inhabitants to become Israeli citizens, thus losing it's Jewish majority and eventually it's mandate for Zionism; or it can rule over them WITHOUT making them citizens, which would legitimize the accusations of apartheid.

Basically, it has nothing to do with what the Palestinians choose to do or not do, this is entirely about Israel, Zionism and how Israel chooses to define itself, as both a Jewish state and a democracy (itself a precarious position, requiring certain expectations be met lest it lose the ethical high ground it still currently occupies.)

[azurnoir]

28. "when we can trust them"? are you Israeli ? your profile says Canada

and just when is this trust supposed to be it can not by your own words be this generation or the next seeing as how you refer to Palestinian children as "future terrorists chomping at the bit."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113411482#post6

[shaayecanaan]

36. I presume he was inferring that Jews are unable to trust Muslims...

or something to that effect. Perhaps he can clarify.

[LeftishBrit]

13. If either Abunimah or Tobin said that the sky was blue and the grass was green

I'd be inclined to disagree with them until I got independent proof!

[The Magistrate]

14. True, Ma'am

I came down here because my tired eyes read 'Jeffery Toobin' for 'Jonathan Tobin', and I wanted to see if the former were branching out.

Of course, then the terminal idiocy displayed begged for some comment, and then someone chose to reply....

And so here we are....

"What my Noble Lord requires of you is two thousand ounces of silver yearly. Otherwise I will be forced to quarter my braves on your granaries."

[PDJane]

27. Israel's settlements are illegal, and it is an illegal occupation.

Israel has been 'negotiating' for years, as has Palestine. There is nothing that Palestine can give Israel to make them happy and allow them their own land. That's nonsense, and always has been.

Israel started in terrorism, and will end in annihilation, likely of the Palestinian people...with Israel claiming it was all the Palestinian's fault.

[holdencaufield]

30. "Israel ...will end in annihilation"

Don't hold your breath -- or, on second thought, please do.

People have been predicting a violent death for Israel for 70 years -- it's not a smart money bet. But, if you insist, I'll give you odds (and a spread).

[PDJane]

31. Read it again. Palestinians are going to be the ones annihilated.........

and Israel will blame them for their own demise.

[holdencaufield]

32. Given that...

... there are roughly 3.5 times as many Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza as there were when Israel "occupation" started in 1967. So, if Israelis are architecting the genocide of the Palestinian Arabs -- they are going in the wrong direction.

I think it's a little premature to put Palestinian Arabs on the endangered species list.

[PDJane]

40. I don't.

And if that many people die or are displaced, Israel will not survive it.

[holdencaufield]

54. "Israel will not survive it."

There you go again ... predicting the demise of Israel. I don't suppose you're willing to put down a rather large wager on it, are you?

I'm not sure how you arrived at such a dismal assessment of Israelis of a particular ethnicity... but, I suggest they are not as vile and aggressive as you've been led to believe. Get out, meet some, learn that they're not the monsters you believe they are.

[PDJane]

57. I'm an apostate Jew. I've been listening to the brainwashing and the altered history.

If Israel continues stealing land and resources and destroying homes and lives, they don't deserve to continue as an entity. In fact, the "Land of Israel" is a hoax. Israel stole the land in the first place, and the only thing that makes that land Jewish is a work of fiction.

[holdencaufield]

58. "I'm an apostate Jew"

Uh-huh

[Shaktimaan]

53. Indeed Israel started in terrorism.

Had the Palestinian Arabs chose other methods to voice their displeasure we might have avoided the conflict entirely. Can you imagine what it would be like had they heeded the words of Prince Faisal who attested that Palestine was "a sacred and beloved homeland of its original sons," the Jews; "the return of these exiles to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their [Arab] brethren."

will end in annihilation, likely of the Palestinian people...with Israel claiming it was all the Palestinian's fault.


You haven't the tiniest shred of evidence to support this.

[PDJane]

60. The conflict couldn't have been avoided, because the Ergun started the terrorism

With the specific aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

[Shaktimaan]

61. Well, that's just absurd.

Where are you getting your historical information from? The record about this is actually not something that's debatable. The history from this time and place was meticulously kept. Basically, here is what happened regarding the Irgun... all through the 1910s, 20 and into the 30s the Yishuv's military wing, Haganah, had a very strict code of "restraint" (Havlagah) which did not allow them to attack any of the Arabs or British beyond purely defensive measures, like guarding Kibbutzes. Following the riots in 1929 the Jerusalem branch of the Haganah felt that they were not being adequately defended. This, coupled with Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement caused a new group, Irgun, to split away from the Haganah and reject it's policy of strict non-violence.

That said, even the Irgun did not begin taking any violent actions until after 1936, when the uprising was in full swing, and those were retaliatory attacks, not traditional terrorism.

Any way you slice it, ANY sort of retaliatory violence from the side of the Yishuv, even the Irgun, came over a decade after terrorism was started by the Palestinian Arabs. You think the Irgun started the terrorism????? Are you totally unaware then of the riots in 1920, 1921, the massacres in 1929, the riots and uprising that lasted three years (!!!) from 36-39???

Exactly what DO you think occurred? And WHERE are you getting this version of history from?

[Scootaloo]

55. Tobin's reading the flash cards

Tobin's argument is the same as Israel's argument; "Israel says whatever Israel does is legal, so it's legal." In order to mask the disingenuous nature of this argument, he has to trot out all the tired-ass talking points about "defensible borders" and "league of nations" and of course "critics just hate Jews."

But pare that away, and it really is just "Israel says Israel is right, so Israel is right."

Of course, there seems to be no recourse for the Palestinians who are involved in this. Mr. Tobin tries to describe this as a dispute between two equals, but that's certainly not the case.