Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Palestinians build 'settlement' near Jerusalem, receive eviction orders from Border Police

In response to the Israeli government’s plans to build 4,000 housing units for Jewish settlers in the E1 area, Palestinians set up a new tent village called Bab Al-Shams (Gate of the Sun). Police attempts to dismantle the new village were thwarted by a temporary warrant issued by the High Court of Justice.

Border Police order to evict the newly built Palestinian outpost, Bab Al-Shams, in the area of E1, January 11, 2013. (photo by: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Some 250 Palestinians, organized in part by the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee and activists from several villages in struggle against the wall and settlements, arrived at the area known by Israel as E1 early this morning, and started work on their new village. Activists state that the village is built entirely on private lands owned by Palestinians from the nearby town of Al-Tur.”This is a popular response to Israel’s plan to expand its settlements, especially in this area,” Muhammad Khatib of the Bil’in Popular Committee told +972.

Not long after the tents were set up, Border Police and Civil Administration forces arrived at the scene and handed out eviction notices to residences of the new outpost-village, threatening to return and demolish the erected tents shortly. Prepared in advance for such an occasion, activists petitioned against the demolitions to the High Court, which then issued a warrant delaying any eviction or demolition for six days.

Palestinians building the Bab Al-Shams tent city in the E1 area between Jerusalem and the West Bank, January 11, 2013. (photo: Activestills)

Israeli plans for construction in E1 as a response to success of the Palestinian UN bid (and partly as a message for voters in the upcoming elections) attracted much worldwide criticism, including from the United States. For the activists, this is a popular and direct response to Israeli attempts at annexing the corridor between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim.

The new village is named “Bab Al-Shams,” after the landmark book by Elias Khoury, which depicts the life of a Palestinian refugee in Lebanon who insists on returning to his home in the Galilee, where he manages to meet his wife in a secret cave called “Bab Al-Shams.”

Palestinian activists plant a Palestinian flag in the Bab Al-Shams tent city in the E1 area, January 11, 2012. (photo: Activestills)

The activists released a statement about the action:

We, the sons and daughters of Palestine from all throughout the land, announce the establishment of Bab Alshams Village. We the people, without permits from the occupation, without permission from anyone, sit here today because this is our land and it is our right to inhabit it…

We declare that the village will stand steadfast until the owners of this land will get their right to build on their land… Bab Alshams is the gate to our freedom and steadfastness. Bab Alshams is our gate to Jerusalem. Bab Alshams is the gate to our return.
For decades, Israel has established facts on the ground as the International community remained silent in response to these violations. The time has come now to change the rules of the game, for us to establish facts on the ground – our own land. This action involving women and men from the north to the south is a form of popular resistance. In the coming days we will hold various discussion groups, educational and artistic presentations, as well as film screenings on the lands of this village. The residents of Bab Alshams invite all the sons and daughters of our people to participate and join the village in supporting our resilience.

This is not the first time that Palestinians set up an outpost in the E1 area. Previous such attempts were made in 2007 and also in 2011. Both previous attempts, made in smaller numbers than this action, ended with the eviction and demolition of the outposts by Israeli authorities.

A Palestinian tent city being constructed by the Popular Committees in the E1 area, January 11, 2013. The camp holds approximately 25 tents, and is called by the activists “Bab al-Shams” village. (photo: Oren Ziv/Activestills)

Read also:
Resource: What is the E1 area, and why is it so important?
Following E1 decision, Israel is more isolated than ever but not likely to change course

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. This is amazing, it helps deliver a clear message to the international community, as well as Israel itself.

      The message relayed is that Palestinians will nonviolently resist occupation and illegal settlement by settling their own land legally.

      By claiming this patch of land in the way that they have done it shows the duplicity in Israel’s moves to steal the land. It’s a bit like Palestinians coming out and saying “We are here, this is our land and you will not illegally take it from us”.

      This nonviolent act should be supported from within Israel & Palestine but also throughout the International Community – especially from governments that claim to uphold International law & human rights.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        The only problem is that *legally* it is not the “Palestinian” land for there is no such nation or state.

        Neither it is Israeli of course, however it is not stated anywhere that land over which never belonged to any authority, internationally recognized representation or government can not be annexed.

        Simply put – Palestinian do not have rights to this land because they still do not have a state which could claim the land despite being offered statehood at least 4 times.

        Reply to Comment
        • aristeides

          The land in question happens to be owned by a Palestinian. Ownership and sovereignty are two entirely different matters.

          Reply to Comment
        • Mahmoud

          Nonsense

          Reply to Comment
    2. mischi

      This is a really important, innovative, and inspiring action: one that deserves to be covered by as many sites as possible.

      However, one important amendment: Bab Al Shams is *not* a settlement. They’ve collectively organized themselves under the “village” model. It might also be accurate to describe it as a “popular camp.”

      It would not, however, be fair to talk about it as a settlement. In their own words:
      “For anyone referring to #BabAlShams as an outpost or settlement, we own the land this village is created on Palestinian land not land theft!” via @bab_alshams

      Please amend the article accordingly, thanks.

      Reply to Comment
    3. sh

      I wish them luck. The BBC already reported it, hope that this story is followed by the press until the petition against the eviction orders is heard by the high court.

      Reply to Comment
      • Rafael

        It won’t. Just like the hunger strikes, it will become a bleep in the Mideast coverage. Some people, you know whom, just won’t accept that Palestinians be portrayed as anything else but violent Jihadis.

        Reply to Comment
    4. Danny

      More bald-faced hypocrisy from the “Only Democracy In the Middle East” (TM): When Jews decide to settle on a given hilltop in the West Bank, the state rubber stamps it by allotting them basic infrastructure, army protection and in many cases legal and political protection as well. When Arabs do the same, they are immediately served with an eviction order.
      .
      Kudos to the Palestinians for brilliantly demonstrating two things with this simple and symbolic gesture:
      - how shamelessly two-faced Israel is
      - how agonizingly stupid it is

      Reply to Comment
    5. Vittorio

      “how shamelessly two-faced Israel is”

      What is two faced about standing up to enemies? If the Palestinians are allowed to fight Israel then Israel is allowed to fight the Palestinians.

      What IS two faced is to pretend otherwise.

      “how agonizingly stupid it is”

      We will see. Wait and we will see who really IS stupid.

      Reply to Comment
    6. David

      I’d love to see hundreds of babs al shams in the occupied territories. This American Jew applauds the ingenuity of this effort. If the Palestinians mobilized by tens of thousands in non-violent disobedience, they could immobilize the apparatus of the occupation and any violent response by the Israelis would further isolate Israel in the international community.

      Reply to Comment
      • The little bashing fest with Oscar and Arieh highlights two things: 1) The Palestinians are irrelevant. 2) Intra-racial policing is well with us, one being told what a Jew must be, with penalty of being a Nazi collaberator ex post.

        Reply to Comment
        • Arieh

          Greg
          You are obsessed with race. This war has nothing to do with race.

          It has everything to do with Arab supremacism and their belief in their God given right to own every square inch of the Middle East.

          Learn a bit of history. The Arabs are the ultimate colonisers. They swept out of the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century. They not only conquered the local populations of half the world and took their lands but forcefully colonised their cultures too. They erased or tried to erase, reasonably successfully, all local religious practices, languages and cultures and turned as many of the local populations into Arabs and Muslims. That is the ultimate colonialism for you.

          Now it hurts them to see little Israel flourishing in their midst without being Arab-Muslims. They consider it an insult to their supremacist ideology.

          But they will learn to get over it and you too will find some other bobby horse to occupy yourself with after this conflict will resolve itself in such a way that Israel will be allowed to live as the ONE nation state of the Jewish people which will prosper.

          Reply to Comment
          • Oscar

            Actually, I think that Greg takes perverse delight in accusing Jews who stand up for Israel as racists.

            It is perverse to accuse Jews, who were the ultimate victims of racism as racists.

            Greg delights in doing that. One has to wonder WHY?

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            An anorexic looks in the mirror and sees a fat person, when in reality she’s starving to death.

            A Zionist fanatic looks in the mirror and sees a victim, when in reality he’s the oppressor.

            Zionism promotes mental disorder.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Bark doggie, bark.

            Aristocrat: you are the best reminder why there is a need to have a Jewish state. It is because of haters like you that we need to have our own state.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            All the nutcases in the same egg crate.

            Reply to Comment
        • A and O, I said nothing about inter-racial conflict in my commnet but rather intra-racial policing, actually refering to your comments below, on Daniel as an–incorrect–American Jew. A replies by lumping 1300 years of history into “Arabs,” O hints at anti-Semitism.

          O, of course there is racial inequality in Israel proper. I personally believe that most of us, including myself, are capable of racists responses. That such is in Israel is well exemplified by the recent High Court Citizenship Law Case which incorporates the “demographic threat.” If either you or A are US citizens, perhaps you see Hispanics as a “demographic threat.” I see them as here. As are Arab Israeli citizens, who are–citizens.

          Reply to Comment
    7. Oscar

      “This American Jew applauds the ingenuity of this effort”

      If you ARE Jewish then you are as stupid and heartless as those American Jews were who said nothing when Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany were turned back to face certain death. Some Jews suffer from short memories and Stockholm Syndrome.

      If you are not Jewish then you know what you are. The word begins with L and ends with R.

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        Yes, it is amazing how shrill the voices of some Jews can be when it is about the rights of sworn enemies of the Jewish people.

        Contrast that to how quiet their grandfathers were when ot was about the very lives of their fellow Jews.

        Disgusting.

        Reply to Comment
        • Oscar

          Some Jews do what is fashionable. In those bad days before World War 2, it was fashionable for Jews to keep a low profile. So they did not speak out for their brothers.

          Nowdays, it is fashionable, in some circles to relentlessly criticise Israel. So they try to outdo each other with their anti Israel rhetoric. A case in point are some of the self professed Jewish posters and bloggers on this site. But in fact, there is nothing Jewish about them. They wield their Jewishness as a tool in the service of the enemies of the Jewish people. Stuff em’.

          Reply to Comment
    8. A brilliant undertaking, well thought out even to immediate stay of the demolition order. I think David, above, correct in emphasizing “nonviolent” upon confrontation of the Israeli authorities. That the land is owned by Palestinians (hopefully with deed in hands and their approval) presents a real question to the High Court. You will probably lose, but there has to be some losing before winning (I know, easy for me to say).

      Don’t let the authorities decide what you are; rather, show the authorities what they are.

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        ” I think David, above, correct in emphasizing “nonviolent” upon confrontation of the Israeli authorities”

        This “nonviolent” confrontation is just the latest tactic that the Palestinians hit upon. This will pass too. No doubt they will then hit upon their next tactic. I am sure they will dream one up.

        The 64 dollar question though is when will they realise and accept the fact that Israel is here to stay as the one Jewish state in an enclave of Arab-Muslim states? And when will they realise and accept that there is NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL, that they can do about it?

        The minute that they will realise that, thats the minute when peace will break out, they will have their own state and they will stop all this BS and blame game. A blame game in which everyone else is at fault for their misfortune. Everyone else except themselves.

        What will kibbitzers like David and Greg do then? They too will have to preoccupy themselves with their next hobby horse instead of Israel.

        Reply to Comment
        • Above you say I am obsessed with race. Here you define a single entity, “Palestinians,” and assert “it” has just “hit upon” nonviolence as a “tactic.” The reality is that the issue of violence is contested within Bank society. Those who advocate nonviolence do not do so to try and trick you; they are presenting to Israel and many Bank residents a possible, struggled alternative. The issue of residency in the Bank is not the (non)existence of Israel. People live in the Bank; their lives are truncated; they want to find a path toward change. There existence need not be Israel’s nonexistence. This is not the suicide bombing war; it is an action in the policing after that wars aftermath. Don’t be obsessed with race; understand that not all Palestinians on the Bank are alike.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ariej

            ” There existence need not be Israel’s nonexistence”

            If so, then all they have to do is to impress upon their leaders to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people and give up their unconditional right of return demand,

            You would be surprised, Greg, how many concessions Israelis would be willing to offer too in return. In fact, now would be a good time for them to do it. Before the Israeli elections.

            But will they do it? I am prepared to bet with you that they won’t. And therefore your claim that what they demand is not Israel’s destruction does mot stand up to scrutiny.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Ariej,
            so they should give up all their legitimate rights just to please you? you are asking them to accept the fact that any jew of the world, just for the fact of his personal faith, has more right than a person whose family has origins on this land. only fanatism could suggest such a way of thinking. religion is a private matter between and your god. Not a political tool

            Reply to Comment
    9. meron

      Trespasser@, No state in the world, recognizes Israel beyond the 1967 lines. Moreover the legal definition of the term “occupation” is applied to a territory in which a foreign military force is able to exercise complete or partial military control, as well as civil-administrative control over infrastructures and the daily life of local residents.
      “This legal definition does not differentiate between the occupation of a territory recognized as a state and a territory that is not recognized as such, and therefore the legal status of the territory is irrelevant and as long as Israel has effective control over these territories it will continue to be considered an occupying power”.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        Funny thing though. The 1967 boundaries are in fact just the 1949 armistice lines. Not legal borders.

        And another funny thing is that at the insistence of the Arabs, there is a specific text in the armistice agreements which stipulate that the armistice lines should not be considered as final borders. Both the Israelis and the Arabs signed the 1949 armistice agreement.

        Why do you think the Arabs stipulated that clause? I have my theory. What is yours Meron?

        Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Meron,

        >No state in the world, recognizes Israel beyond the 1967 lines.

        What exactly are 1967 lines and by what law these lines must be the internationally recognized borders?

        By the way, some of world states would not recognize Israel at all, in any borders whatsoever. So what?

        >”This legal definition does not differentiate between the occupation of a territory recognized as a state and a territory that is not recognized as such”

        Dunno who wrote this, but the relevant conventions clearly does not say so.

        From wiki:
        “Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.”

        No actual sovereign = no occupation.

        From the Fourth Geneva Convention
        “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.”

        No state = no protection by the convention. Technically.

        You are welcome to prove me wrong of course.

        As of UNGA and UNSC resolutions – some of them could not be considered legal even remotely.
        An example:

        “Resolution 478 (1980)
        of 20 August 1980

        Deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security”

        Not only a supposed “holiness” of a place is hardly a legal criteria, also it seems that the person who’ve wrote this text is unaware of a simple fact that Jerusalem is holy first and foremost to Jews, so IF holiness has anything to do with international law than Jews certainly have right to exercise sovereignty over entire Temple Mount.

        It seems that the writers of this resolution were concerned by the very fact that jooz lay their hands on the Holy City than by legislative side of the issue.

        Reply to Comment
    10. Shmuel

      Here is the text of the particular clause that was signed with Jordan:

      “no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.”

      Read about it here:

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements

      So how valid is the claim that the 1967 boundaries are Israel’s legal borders? Not very valid in my opinion and in the opinions of many respected international legal experts who are not motivated by power politics.

      Reply to Comment
      • From Europe

        Why do you keep referring to a document from 1949, that is, more than 60 years ago? Since then, the matter has been discussed in the highest legal bodies in the world.

        It is the view of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the highest authority on international law in the world, that land beyond the 1967 boundaries is occupied (and thus not part of Israel). Moreover, these are the boundaries under which the international community recognizes Israel. This is the official viewpoint of the EU, for instance.

        Reply to Comment
    11. Shmuel

      “Why do you keep referring to a document from 1949, that is, more than 60 years ago?”

      You mean legal documents date and can get arbitrarily over ruled by a politicised body like the ICC which in any case only gave an advisory non binding advice? Moreover, even some of the judges questioned whether it was appropriate for the ICC to rule on that matter before them.

      Oh and there is a “small” matter of UN security council resolution 242 which clearly stated that Israel should withdraw to SECURE borders. The clear intent of the resolution was to get the parties to negotiate which borders would be recognised.

      Reply to Comment
      • directrob

        I guess you mean the ICJ? and some is “one”?

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          Yes I mean the ICJ, not the ICC. I just quoted the poster ‘From Europe’.

          Maybe you should correct him too? After all, he made the original mistake.

          Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            Yes I should have corrected him too. People should check their sources and not parrot others.

            By the way resolution 242 does certainly not ‘clearly’ say Israeli should withdraw to secure borders.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw FROM territories recently occupied (in 1967), not ALL the territories.

            This is the exact text relating to security:

            “(ii) … and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

            If you want, I can conjure up links to what Eugene Rostow and Lord Cardamon said what this meant.

            You do know who they were don’t you? They were two of the principal architects of the resolution.

            Reply to Comment
    12. Shmuel

      “What exactly are 1967 lines and by what law these lines must be the internationally recognized borders?”

      Good question Tresspasser. The answer of course is by arbitrary “made up laws” repeated ad-nauseum till some people actually believe it.

      Reply to Comment
    13. meron

      trespasser@,
      1) “What exactly are 1967 lines?”.
      Are Armistice Demarcation Lines (not borders) beyond which no state in the world recognizes Israel’s right to colonize the land.
      2) “By the way, some of world states would not recognize Israel at all”. That’s not an answer. No state in the world recognizes Israel beyond the green line. The fact that you shift the topic and you point out that there are few crazy countries in the world does not change in any respect the point of the discussion: No state in the world recognizes Israel beyond the green line. No one of the 193 countries of the UN. No one.
      3) The Israeli Supreme Court itself established that the application of the regulations on the matter of occupation depends on the effective military control exercised from outside the nation’s borders, and not from previous sovereignty over the territory of a specific state (HCJ 785/87)
      4) The matter is not if the Fourth Geneva Convention protects or not the Pals. The point is that Israel, according to United Nations Security Council resolution 446 and to all the international bodies, is violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. Not least because proving money and benefits to new settlers is a way to “transfer parts of” the Israeli “civilian population into the territory it occupies”
      5) “As of UNGA and UNSC resolutions – some of them could not be considered legal even remotely”: you are referring by UNGA resolution 181 of 1947 or are you picking the ones that you don’t like?
      6) “Jerusalem is holy first and foremost to Jews”: for a Jew, this is certainly true.
      7) Religion is certainly a private matter between a human being and his god. That’s the reason why to steal land in the name of (a selective use of) religion is immoral and not acceptable from the point of view of the international law.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Meron,
        1) “What exactly are 1967 lines?”.
        >Are Armistice Demarcation Lines(not borders)
        Period.

        2) “By the way, some of world states would not recognize Israel at all”. That’s not an answer. No state in the world recognizes Israel beyond the green line.

        You don’t know much about the history of the Green Line, otherwise you wouldn’t claim such nonsense.

        “The Green Line is not an international or permanent border – Professor Stephen M. Schwebel,[2] at the time a deputy legal advisor to the U.S. Department of State, Legal Adviser Office (1961–1981), wrote in the American Journal of International Law (1970) that “…modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful (if not necessarily desirable), whether those modifications are…’insubstantial alterations required for mutual security’ or more substantial alterations – such as recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem.” In a footnote, he wrote: “It should be added that the armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them.”[3]”

        >The fact that you shift the topic and you point out that there are few crazy countries in the world does not change in any respect the point of the discussion:
        Countries can’t be crazy or idiotic. People can.

        SOME of world states opinion must be ignored, while others must be considered.
        Do you have a rational explanation why Iran’s opinion means less than US’ or Chine’s?

        >No state in the world recognizes Israel beyond the green line. No one of the 193 countries of the UN. No one.

        The Green Line is not an internationally recognized border and as such can’t be a basis to recognition.

        3) The Israeli Supreme Court itself established that the application of the regulations on the matter of occupation depends on the effective military control exercised from outside the nation’s borders, and not from previous sovereignty over the territory of a specific state (HCJ 785/87)

        So?

        4) The matter is not if the Fourth Geneva Convention protects or not the Pals. The point is that Israel, according to United Nations Security Council resolution 446 and to all the international bodies, is violating the Fourth Geneva Convention.

        How exactly the Forth Convention could be violated if Palestinians are not protected by it?

        >Not least because proving money and benefits to new settlers is a way to “transfer parts of” the Israeli “civilian population into the territory it occupies”

        Since the territory is not protected by the Fourth Convention is is perfectly legal to transfer population there.

        5) “As of UNGA and UNSC resolutions – some of them could not be considered legal even remotely”: you are referring by UNGA resolution 181 of 1947 or are you picking the ones that you don’t like?

        Rephrase your question.

        6) “Jerusalem is holy first and foremost to Jews”: for a Jew, this is certainly true.

        It is an undeniable fact.

        1 – Jerusalem IS NOT holy to Muslims – it is not mentioned in Quran even once.

        2 – Jerusalem is SOMEWHAT holy to Christians, alongside with Natzeret and Beit Lehem

        3 – Jerusalem is not holy to Hinduists, Buddhists, Pagans and numerous others.

        4 – Jerusalem is the capital of ancient Jewish state and it is the most holy place to Judaism

        7)That’s the reason why to steal land in the name of (a selective use of) religion is immoral and not acceptable from the point of view of the international law.

        Muslims had stolen this land in the name of Allah, Jews are merely getting it back in the name of Jehova.

        Any problem?

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          Trespasser@,
          1) “Are Armistice Demarcation Lines(not borders) beyond which no state in the world recognizes Israel’s right to colonize the land.”
          Now you can put your period.

          2) The UNGA recognizes the State of Palestine. True, we still don’t have clear-cut borders, but following your logic Abu Mazen&co could start to create Palestinian settlements in Israel due to the fact that there are not agreed borders and so Israel is “open”.
          .
          3) I write you that no state in the world recognizes Israel beyond the green line and you answer me pasting from Wikipedia that few decades ago Stephen M. Schwebel, claimed that the armistice agreements of 1949 did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them.
          Please provide me an official position from any international organization or from one single recognized State in which is asserted that the fact that “the armistice agreements of 1949 did not purport to establish definitive boundaries” implies that Israel has the right to colonize and steal the natural resources in what the UNSC, the UNGA, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross call “occupied territories”.
          4)
          “Countries can’t be crazy or idiotic. People can”. Brilliant clarification. But again, it does not change in any way the issue. Few states do not recognize Israel. This does not make less relevant the fact that no 1 among the 193 countries in the UNGA recognizes Israel beyond the Green Line.
          5)
          “The Green Line is not an internationally recognized border” and as such can’t be a basis to recognition”:
          The International Court of Justice ruling of 9 July 2004 determined that Israel is illegally occupying this territory in violation of international law. These violations include articles of the 4th Geneva Convention; the 4th Hague Convention 1907; UN Security Council Resolutions 446, 452 & 465; and articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
          .
          6) The Israeli Supreme Court itself established that the application of the regulations on the matter of occupation depends on the effective military control exercised from outside the nation’s borders, and not from previous sovereignty over the territory of a specific state (HCJ 785/87)
          “So?”
          So your argument does not stand even from the point of view of the HCJ.
          .
          7)
          “How exactly the Forth Convention could be violated if Palestinians are not protected by it?”
          It is a flawed assumption. First because Israel adopted the Forth G.C. and thus if it transfers, through founding and benefits, new settlers in what what the UNSC, the UNGA, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross call “occupied territories”, it means that it is violating the Forth G.C. and so that is not “perfectly legal” to transfer population beyond a line not recognize by anyone, Israel excluded.
          8)
          “you are referring by UNGA resolution 181 of 1947 or are you picking the ones that you don’t like?”
          “Rephrase your question”:
          You understood what I mean. I am not english mother tongue, if you feel uncomfortable with it we can switch to another language.
          9)
          “Jerusalem is holy first and foremost to Jews”: for a Jew, this is certainly true.
          It is an undeniable fact.
          Again, for a Jew yes.
          10)
          About Jerusalem…The mosque of al-Aqsa is certainly the result of
          an interpretation. However, I wonder what difference it makes if Jerusalem is
          explicitly mentioned or not. Everything is an interpretation. Many academics,
          especially Israelis, have shown that the exodus of the Jewish people in
          Egypt is full of distortions, often inventions. This does not change anything for Jewish believers.
          You continue to believe to your myths as well as other people continue to believe
          in theirs. It is not a matter of facts, but of believing. A billion and a half Muslims
          believe in the the night journey of their Prophet towards their
          Jerusalem. This is what counts, unless you don’t want to analyze the veridicity of
          all the events mentioned in the sacred books of the three monotheistic religions to find historical evidence. If so, you would be very disappointed.
          .
          11)
          “Muslims had stolen this land in the name of Allah”.
          So basic. No one stole anything. The population was simply Arabized. In the words of Maxime Rodinson:
          “A foreign people had come and imposed itself on a native population. The Arab population of Palestine were native in all the usual senses of that word. Ignorance, sometimes backed up by hypocritical propaganda, has spread a number of misconceptions on this subject, unfortunately very widely held. It has been said that since the Arabs took the country by military conquest in the seventh century, they are occupiers like any other, like the Romans, the Crusaders and the Turks. Why therefore should they be regarded as any more native than the others, and in particular than the Jews, who were native to that country in ancient times, or at least occupiers of longer standing? To the historian the answer is obvious. A small contingent of Arabs from Arabia did indeed conquer the country in the seventh century. But as a result of factors which were briefly outlined in the first chapter of this book, the Palestinian population soon became Arabized under Arab domination, just as earlier it had been Hebraicized, Aramaicized, to some degree even Hellenized. It became Arab in a way that it was never to become Latinized or Ottomanized. The invaded melted with the invaders. It is ridiculous to call the English of today invaders and occupiers, on the grounds that England was conquered from Celtic peoples by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries. The population was “Anglicized” and nobody suggests that the peoples which have more or less preserved the Celtic tongues – the Irish, the Welsh or the Bretons – should be regarded as the true natives of Kent or Suffolk, with greater titles to these territories than the English who live in those counties.”
          .
          “Any problem?”
          More than one. Ignorance and extremism are not the answers.

          Reply to Comment
    14. Shmuel

      “1) “What exactly are 1967 lines?”.
      Are Armistice Demarcation Lines (not borders) beyond which no state in the world recognizes Israel’s right to colonize the land.”

      Good Meron, you are making progress. You are no longer talking about 1967 borders. You now acknowledge that those are armistice lines. Which clearly specified that final borders SHOULD be negotiated (as did UNSC Resolution 242).

      However, you still forgot that Jordan was the party that broke the armistice agreement in 1967 when it attacked Israel.

      As for what oil hungry and trade hungry nations recognise or don’t recognise, it does not make international laws. It just makes self interested politics.

      The fact is that since there are no agreed borders, and since there never was a sovereign state called Palestine and since the intent was always to negotiate SECURE borders and since as yet no Palestinian leadership was prepared to conduct serious negotiations, there are no real legal reasons why Israel could not re-populate border townships from which the Jordanians and Palestinians ethnically cleansed Jews in 1948. Admittedly it would have been better if these would have been re-populated in the context of a negotiated peace deal which would have specified the borders of Israel and Palestine. But since the Palestinians chose to drag their feet, Israel could not wait forever.

      When I say “drag their feet” I mean they did not even conduct direct negotiations with Israel till the early 1990s. Till then, their mantra was: “what was taken by the sword, can only be taken back with the sword”.

      Reply to Comment
    15. carl

      ….”the relevant conventions clearly does not say so. From wiki:’Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign’”.
      .
      So Trespasser you do confirm that the legal definition does not differentiate between the occupation of a territory recognized as a state and a territory that is not recognized as such?

      Reply to Comment
      • Kiwi

        Carl
        What exactly makes unpopulated crown lands of the West Bank Palestinian if there never was a Palestine nor defined borders?

        Asserting that it just IS Palestinian land is not a valid legal argument.

        Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Carl,
        Do you have problems understanding simple English phrases?

        The text clearly says “.. without the volition of the actual sovereign”

        No actual sovereign = no occupation.

        Reply to Comment
    16. meron

      Kiwi@,
      Palestine was not a state, but this does not mean anything. “State” is a Western concept and was irrelevant on the spot. The same is true for “borders” or “capital”.
      Granted these aspects, we can pass to the second issue. West Bank is Palestinian because is, with the gaza strip, the last little piece of land in the hands of the pals, the 9/10 of the total population present on the spot in the first years of the XX century.
      More than this, it’s Palestinian because almost all the international community and all international bodies, much more representative than the 56 states that formed the UNGA in 1947, think so.
      ..
      As for ‘crown land’, you should better address the issue and abandon a western-centric approach when you deal with these issues.
      In all the Ottoman Empire the Mulk land (private property) was just 5 percent of the total. This because the land DID BELONG to the community of believers. In other words they didn’t manage land tenure in a western way and no one can blame them for this. Like no one can blame them because they didn’t consider concepts such as state or capital as ways of self-representing their aspirations.
      ….
      The owners of the land were the people that did live on it. Or otherwise you should tell to every citizens that live in a former state under the ottoman empire that they didn’t own their lands. If so, you can plan to colonize also that lands.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        “Palestine was not a state, but this does not mean anything. “State” is a Western concept and was irrelevant on the spot. The same is true for “borders” or “capital”.”

        Pinnacle of idiocy.

        If Western concepts such as “capital” or “state” are not relevant than other Western concepts such as “human rights” are not relevant as well.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “If Western concepts such as “capital” or “state” are not relevant than other Western concepts such as “human rights” are not relevant as well.”
          .
          You are making confusion between political concepts and the universal nature of human rights. The fact that human rights norms emerged mainly in the West does not mean that the rest of the world was “immoral” or devoid of human rights values.
          Colonialism, Shoah and some of the worst crimes against humanity took place in Europe. To say that freedom, democracy…ect…ect… are Western creations is an utter simplification.
          I suggest you to read “The Idea of justice” by Amartya Sean

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            There is no such thing as “universal human rights”

            Unless of course you think that you are any better than a dog or a dolphin.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Perhaps you didn’t understand, so I explain you again with other words. Beneath or at the base of “human rights” there are “universal values”, values that do not belong to any single continent or people.
            Political concepts are something totally different.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            1) “This is nothing but opinion: beyond which no state in the world recognizes Israel’s right to colonize the land.”
            This is a fact. Please prove the contrary.

            I did not expressed myself well enough. I mean that recognition or lack of such by any state is nothing but an opinion expressed by a statesmen.

            2)“By a letter of a law – they surely could”: great, so we agree that the Pals could now start to colonize Israel and steal its natural resources. If it will happen, let’s see your reaction.

            My reaction is unnecessary. Israel is a state and as such it has it’s means of protecting itself.

            Contrary to that, “Palestine” is not a state, therefore it has no authority over anything.

            3)They are not simply opinions.

            Well, they are nothing but opinions of biased, corrupted and uneducated people.

            >And the UNGA is the tool that allowed Israel to be created.

            Wrong. Israel was created by it’s people.

            >You use religion and international law/organizations in a very selective way, as a real settler.

            4)so the entire world is crazy.

            Majority is ALWAYS wrong. Mathematically.

            You see, MOST of people don’t have MOST of information, which means that decisions of the most are inherently wrong.

            Crazy? No. Stupid and ignorant.

            5)“the Green Line is not a border”: this is less relevant than the fact that no one state or organization in the world recognize Israel beyond the green line.

            If the Green Line is not the border, than by what jurisdiction world countries could recognize where Israel begins and where ends?

            6)“….ICJ judges… their decision is baseless and politically biased”. For you and the settlers, for the rest of the world it matter.

            The rest of the world did not even bother to read what each of judges had to say. Opinions of ignorant matters only to themselves.

            7)The Fourth G.C. states rather clearly how a state can violate the convention. All the rest is secondary.

            Yeah, it clearly states that if sovereign of the territory in question is not a signatory of 4GC than the people of that territory are not protected by the 4GC.

            8)Yes, there are written laws that you consider in a selective way.
            9)Again, you understood what I mean.
            Whatever.

            10)“Well, a billion and a half Muslims are gravely mistaken than”.
            The same is true about the exodus and many other Jewish myths.

            Hardly the same. While it is not possible to firmly confirm or reject whether exodus or some other events took place indeed, it’s rather easy to prove that Muhammad never went to Jerusalem.

            You see, Muhammad took his trip to heavens from the “furthest mosque”
            The problem is that at the time there was not even one single mosque in Jerusalem.

            11)I prefer to start explaining to few millions of Israelis like you that stealing the land of other human beings

            Since when Palestinian Arabs did became the sole owners of entire area?

            By what law exactly did Palestinian Arabs had a right to prevent Jewish influx to Palestine?

            >through a selective use of a religion to which other persons are not obliged to adhere is immoral and not acceptable

            Selective use of what religion?
            You are probably unaware that first Zionists were nearly completely secular.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            “Beneath or at the base of “human rights” there are “universal values”, values that do not belong to any single continent or people.”

            Could you please list these inherently pan-human values?

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Trespasser,
            “Could you please list these inherently pan-human values?”
            Integrity of the person, economical and social rights, self-determination, freedom, dignity…should I continue?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Integrity of the person, economical and social rights, self-determination, freedom, dignity…should I continue?

            Enough for a meanwhile.

            So, basically you are claiming that these values were inherent to indigenous population of pre-1948 Palestine therefore all West brought here was some non-relevant political decisions.

            Did I get you right?

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            trespasser,
            “So, basically you are claiming that these values were inherent to indigenous population of pre-1948 Palestine therefore all West brought here was some non-relevant political decisions.”
            No, I wrote that when you point out that “If Western concepts such as capital or state are not relevant than other Western concepts such as human rights are not relevant as well” you show a lack of understanding of political issues vis-à-vis universal values.
            That values were inherent to indigenous population of pre-1948 Palestine and to other thousand of populations around the world. Human rights are not “Western”. On the other side, when a person write that Palestine was not a State, that Jerusalem was not a capital, that the land was “private property”, in order to show that for these and other similar reasons the local majority did not care about the land or do/did not have rights on it, simply shows utter ignorance on these topics.
            Again, the fact that in the XVI cent Al Din Al Ramli (and many others) wrote “Filastin biladuna” (Palestine our land) and not “Palestine our state” is not relevant at all.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Meron:
            Integrity of the person, economical and social rights, self-determination, freedom, dignity…should I continue?

            The Trespasser:
            So, basically you are claiming that these values were inherent to indigenous population of pre-1948 Palestine therefore all West brought here was some non-relevant political decisions.

            >No

            No?

            >That values were inherent to indigenous population of pre-1948 Palestine and to other thousand of populations around the world.

            Yes, you do.

            >I wrote that when you point out that “If Western concepts such as capital or state are not relevant than other Western concepts such as human rights are not relevant as well” you show a lack of understanding of political issues vis-à-vis universal values.

            For starters we’ll have to define these “universal values” and on what basis these values are considered universal and inherent to any society.

            All you have to do to back you claims is to provide a list of societies where these “universal values” were actually implemented.

            >Again, the fact that in the XVI cent Al Din Al Ramli (and many others) wrote “Filastin biladuna” (Palestine our land) and not “Palestine our state” is not relevant at all.

            I’m rather certain that some of Arab invaders in Iberia proclaimed “Al-Adnalus biladuna” just a few years before that.

            Pity you weren’t with the Spanish army at the time – they’d certainly listen to your words very carefully.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            trespasser,
            1.
            “I’m rather certain that some of Arab invaders in Iberia proclaimed “Al-Adnalus biladuna” just a few years before that”:
            you are “rather certain” because you don’t know. It happens quite often. BTW, al-Ramli, as you should notice from his family name, was from Ramle. Not for New York or from Russia, but from Ramle.
            2.
            “For starters we’ll have to define these “universal values” and on what basis these values are considered universal and inherent to any society”:
            it’s you that have to prove why that values should be just Western, not me the opposite.
            3.
            “All you have to do to back you claims is to provide a list of societies where these “universal values” were actually implemented”:
            I already suggested you to read a little about it, staring from Amartya Sen. He focuses mainly on India, but he writes also about many other contexts.
            Remember that the worst crimes of the history of human beings took place in your “enlighted countries”.
            I can image that for you is really hard to believe that when Ramban was expelled from Spain chose to go to Cairo and not toLondon.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Meron

            >you are “rather certain” because you don’t know. It happens quite often.

            My ignorant and poorly educated friend, I know more than you could possibly imagine.

            https://www.google.co.il/search?q=We+request+of+Allah…that+the+[Islamic]+nation+should+regain+its+honor+and+prestige%2C+should+raise+again+the+unique+flag+of+Allah+on+all+stolen+Islamic

            >BTW, al-Ramli, as you should notice from his family name, was from Ramle. Not for New York or from Russia, but from Ramle.

            Haaj Alloun ibn Ibrahim al-Randi al-Andalusi as you should notice from his family name is hardly of Palestinian origin, yet he’s buried on the Mamilla cemetery in Jerusalem. Native “Palestinian”, huh?

            >it’s you that have to prove why that values should be just Western, not me the opposite.

            Proof is simple – there is no other societies where all/most of these values were equally implemented (or even widely discussed) other than Western societies.

            >I already suggested you to read a little about it, staring from Amartya Sen. He focuses mainly on India, but he writes also about many other contexts.

            Mr. Sen’s philosophical theories might seem deep and interesting mostly to individuals unfamiliar with other philosophers’ works.

            Not only he is not telling anything new; claims such as “Freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means.” or “Quite often economic insecurity can relate to the lack of democratic rights and liberties.” hardly could be taken seriously.

            >Remember that the worst crimes of the history of human beings took place in your “enlighted countries”.

            Not really. Those committed in “enlightened countries” are remembered and studied, that’s all.

            You haven’t read much about Tutsi and Hutu, or about Japan/China war, or the Khmer Rouge, did you?

            Oh, but of course you did not.

            >I can imagine that for you is really hard to believe that when Ramban was expelled from Spain chose to go to Cairo and not to London.

            WTF are you talking about? some alternative history?

            Nahmanides was born at Porta, Barcelona in 1194. He grew up and studied in Girona (hence his name “Girondi”), and died in the Land of Israel about 1270

            The justness of his defense was recognized by the King and the commission, but to satisfy the Dominicans, Nahmanides was sentenced to exile for two years and his pamphlet was condemned to be burned. He may also fined, but this was lifted as a favor to Benveniste de Porta, who according to some authorities (Graetz Gesschichte der juden Vol. VII pp. 440–441;, Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond, p. 199)), was Nahmanides’ brother. The Dominicans, however, found this punishment too mild and, through Pope Clement IV, they seem to have succeeded in turning the two years’ exile into perpetual banishment.

            Other scholars believe that the identification of Bonastruc de Porta with Nachmanides is incorrect (Mayer Kayserling JQR Review 8, 1896, p. 494. If their view is correct than there were actually two people who were found to be blasphemous in the same time period and location.

            Nahmanides left Aragon and sojourned for three years somewhere in Castille or in southern France. In 1267, seeking refuge in Muslim lands from Christian persecution,[6] he made aliyah to Jerusalem.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides#Biography

            Are you banned on Google or something?

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Tresapsse@
            “I know more than you could possibly imagine”: if so, you do your best to hide it.
            .
            “Haaj Alloun ibn Ibrahim al-Randi al-Andalusi as you should notice from his family name is hardly of Palestinian origin, yet he’s buried on the Mamilla cemetery in Jerusalem. Native “Palestinian”, huh?”
            So what? Are you suggesting that a Muslin cannot be free to be buried wherever he wants? Or are you claiming the al din al ramli was not from this region because many muslims want to be buried in what they consider their al ard al muqaddasa? Do you read things that you write?
            .
            “Proof is simple – there is no other societies where all/most of these values were equally implemented (or even widely discussed) other than Western societies”:
            ignorance brings you to write this. Read the book that I suggested you and few others. The white’s man burden approach is something that just little minds can support.
            .
            “Not really. Those committed in “enlightened countries” are remembered and studied, that’s all”:
            really? Can you mention something similar to the Shoah in other parts of the world? Or the something similar to colonialism or the Second World War? Where antisemitism took place? Where was it “inveneted”?
            .
            “You haven’t read much about Tutsi and Hutu, or about Japan/China war, or the Khmer Rouge, did you?”
            Great, the Tusi and Hutu massacres are comparable to the Shoah. Good to know.
            .
            “Are you banned on Google or something?”
            RAMBAM=MAIMONIDES
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides
            “I can image that for you is really hard to believe that when Rambam was expelled from Spain chose to go to Cairo and not to London.” I wrote N instead of M. Hope you will forgive me for this tremendous mistake.

            Reply to Comment
      • Kiwi

        “Palestine was not a state, but this does not mean anything. “State” is a Western concept and was irrelevant on the spot. The same is true for “borders” or “capital”.”

        Hold on there. You can’t have it both ways. You were the one who started talking about 1967 lines and Western concepts which prohibit population transfers.

        So either stick to western concepts for all aspects of the argument or none of it. Pick your choice.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “Hold on there. You can’t have it both ways. You were the one who started talking about 1967 lines and Western concepts which prohibit population transfers.”
          You are not serious, right?
          Of course today is well accepted that people in every part of the world recognize themselves through concepts such as states, borders, capitals…ect..
          I pointed out that in the XIX century the majority on the spot and many other populations of the world did not represent themselves through that concepts. This means that the fact that the local majority didn’t have any necessity to use a Western concept (“Palestinian state”), did not make that land less Palestinian and Arab

          Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            @Meron
            “I pointed out that in the XIX century the majority on the spot and many other populations of the world did not represent themselves through that concepts”

            But we were not talking about the XIX century. We are talking about facts.

            The fact is that there never was a sovereign state called Palestine. Not in the XIX century, not since and not even now. Because even the recent UN vote did not yet rdcognise a sovereign state called Palestine.

            Is that too difficult a concept for you to register?

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            you are changing the topic. I explained u why I did not contradict myself. People did not represent themselves through those concepts, but today of course they are obliged and in many case willing to do so.
            The fact that in the XVI cent Al Din Al Ramli (and many others) wrote “Filastin biladuna” (Palestine our land) and not “Palestine our state” is not relevant at all. Do you understand it?
            .
            Now you bring a new topic. Even the recent UN vote did not yet rdcognise a sovereign state called Palestine. Really? So what it did recognise? The fact that the Palestine State does not have clear-cut borders is again irrelevant because Israel too does not have clear-cut borders.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            @Meron
            No topic was changed. You talked about laws created by western powers with regards to population transfers into territories of other states.

            I reminded you that by western laws, there never was a sovereign state called Palestine. Not in the XIX century, not since and not even now.

            Thats it Meron. Stop trying to obfuscate.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Kiwi,
            “Western laws” we worthy in the Western world. unless you still support the ‘White man’s burden approach’.
            When a person write that Palestine was not a State, that Jerusalem was not a capital, that the land was “private property”, in order to show that for these and other similar reasons the local majority did not care about the land or do/did not have rights on it, simply shows utter ignorance on these topics.
            Again, the fact that in the XVI cent Al Din Al Ramli (and many others) wrote “Filastin biladuna” (Palestine our land) and not “Palestine our state” is not relevant at all.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            PS KIWI,
            “You talked about laws created by western powers with regards to population transfers into territories of other states”: the forth geneva convention was signed by many Islamic and Arab States already in the first 2 years of its existence.
            No one out in doubt that during the XX century the idea of “state” become central in all the world. But this is not relevant at all. We were discussing about the fact that Palestine was not a State simply because before the climax of colonization such concept was irrelevant on the spot. A Western concept for a non-Western region. Afterwards, starting from the Crimea War, Palestine and many other parts of the world started to be pushed to perceive themselves through a system imposed by the West. Mutatis mutandis, It is the same about the symbol of the Crescent moon, that originally was certainly not a “Islamic symbol”

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >No one out in doubt that during the XX century the idea of “state” become central in all the world.

            Yes. Like the idea of “human rights”

            >But this is not relevant at all.

            Yes, it is.

            >We were discussing about the fact that Palestine was not a State simply because before the climax of colonization such concept was irrelevant on the spot.

            No matter WHY it was not the state BEFORE 1948. What matters is that it remained such afterwards.

            >A Western concept for a non-Western region.

            Yes. Like “human rights” “fourth Geneva conventions” and such.

            >Afterwards, starting from the Crimea War, Palestine and many other parts of the world started to be pushed to perceive themselves through a system imposed by the West.

            Yes. Which includes education for all, advanced medical services, protection of human rights, et cetera, et cetera.

            Reply to Comment
    17. meron

      Shmeul@,
      “Good Meron, you are making progress. You are no longer talking about 1967 borders”.
      1) Read the previous posts. I never wrote about “1967 borders”. Please don’t invent things and don’t put in my mouth what you wish for.
      2) UN Security Council Resolution 242, that you mentioned, noted the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive.
      3) 1949 Armistice lines constituted the de facto delimitations of pre-1967 Israel. Moreover, even accepting the assumption that final borders should be negotiated this does not mean that Israel is allowed to steal Pal land and resources. You make confusion between the right to negotiate and the right to steal.
      4) “you still forgot that Jordan was the party that broke the armistice agreement in 1967 when it attacked Israel”. Uncorrect and irrelevant. Uncorrect because you don’t consider the Samu Accident. Irrelevant because the Jordanian occupation was opposed by the local population at the time to the point that King Hussein felt obliged to impose martial law
      5) “As for what oil hungry and trade hungry nations recognise or don’t recognise, it does not make international laws. It just makes self interested politics”:
      the UNSC, the UNGA, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross…ect… refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as occupied Palestinian territory.
      Is it Israel alone that makes international laws?
      6) “no real legal reasons why Israel could not re-populate border townships from which the Jordanians and Palestinians ethnically cleansed Jews in 1948″:
      Is it a joke? About 700.000 Pals were expelled and/or left for few hours or days their homes (without having the chance to go back), in comparison to few hundreds of Jews. People like you remind me why there is not any chance to reach peace in this land.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        “Uncorrect and irrelevant. Uncorrect because you don’t consider the Samu Accident”

        You are joking, right? You are denying that Jordan was the one to attack Israel in the 1967 war?

        The Samu incident you say? Are you being stupid? According to that logic we may as well go back to 1948. Because before the Samu incident there was an incident sparked by Arabs from across the Jordanian border. Attack and counter attack etc. all the way back to 1948-49. And guess who was the aggressor in 1948-49? You guessed it: JORDAN.

        “Irrelevant because the Jordanian occupation was opposed by the local population at the time to the point that King Hussein felt obliged to impose martial law”

        Your response is the one that is irrelevant. Jordan was the only Arab country that offered citizenship to Palestinians and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians took up the offer. So much so that today, a majority of Jordan’s citizens are of Palestinian origin.

        Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @meron
        “the UNSC, the UNGA, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross…ect… refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as occupied Palestinian territory.”

        Of all that above list, only the UNSC resolutions have legal standing and even only UNSC chapter 7 resolutions have legal enforcability.

        The rest of your bodies on your list can only offer recommendations and advise which have no legal weight. And just as well too because the UN is an Arab-Muslim centric body when it comes to Israel. It is a stacked politicised body which would pass a resolution stating that Israel and Israel alone is the cause of climate change.

        You don’t believe me? Then check who they recently elected to be the vice president of Human Rights Watch. And they were elected on Human Rights day. They elected Mauritania.

        To illustrate the perversity of the UN one only needs to look at the Human Rights record of Mauritania:

        Mauritania still practices slavery. The lighter skinned Moors hold up to 800,000 darker skinned people as slaves.

        Thats the UN for you Meron. Now please give me a link which states that Israel is the occupier of “a Palestinian state”. Not Palestinian territories mind you. The operative word is the word “Palestinian State”.

        Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “Is it a joke? About 700.000 Pals were expelled and/or left for few hours or days their homes (without having the chance to go back), in comparison to few hundreds of Jews”

        No joke at all Meron. The fact is that had the Arabs won in 1967, that is exactly what they would have done. They would have killed and expelled many Jewish Israelis and they would have repopulated Israel with Arabs. I suspect that we would not have heard a pip out of people like you in protest.

        But since Israel won the war AND the Arabs would not negotiate a peace deal. The least that Israel could do was to repopulate East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion with Jews. Those are places where Jews lived prior to 1948. And in the case of Jerusalem, Jews lived there continuously for thousands of years.

        As for some of the other of the settlements. Have you heard of land swaps?

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          I said above that:

          ” … As for some of the other of the settlements. Have you heard of land swaps?”

          Legally speaking, land swaps are just another option. They are not mandatory. Israel may offer them in order to facilitate an agreed solution.

          Another option would be to leave some settlements under the jurisdiction of Palestine. With Palestine having a minority of Jewish citizens, in the same way that Israel has a minority of Arab citizens. Of course, in practice, such an outcome is unlikely.

          Still we will never know, until there are serious negotiations.

          Reply to Comment
    18. Meron

      Trespasser@,
      1) “Are Armistice Demarcation Lines(not borders) beyond which no state in the world recognizes Israel’s right to colonize the land.”
      Now you can put your period.

      2) The UNGA recognizes the State of Palestine. True, we still don’t have clear-cut borders, but following your logic Abu Mazen&co could start to create Palestinian settlements in Israel due to the fact that there are not agreed borders and so Israel is “open”.
      .
      3) I write you that no state in the world recognizes Israel beyond the green line and you answer me pasting from Wikipedia that few decades ago Stephen M. Schwebel, claimed that the armistice agreements of 1949 did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them.
      Please provide me an official position from any international organization or from one single recognized State in which is asserted that the fact that “the armistice agreements of 1949 did not purport to establish definitive boundaries” implies that Israel has the right to colonize and steal the natural resources in what the UNSC, the UNGA, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross call “occupied territories”.
      4)
      “Countries can’t be crazy or idiotic. People can”. Brilliant clarification. But again, it does not change in any way the issue. Few states do not recognize Israel. This does not make less relevant the fact that no 1 among the 193 countries in the UNGA recognizes Israel beyond the Green Line.
      5)
      “The Green Line is not an internationally recognized border” and as such can’t be a basis to recognition”:
      The International Court of Justice ruling of 9 July 2004 determined that Israel is illegally occupying this territory in violation of international law. These violations include articles of the 4th Geneva Convention; the 4th Hague Convention 1907; UN Security Council Resolutions 446, 452 & 465; and articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
      .
      6) The Israeli Supreme Court itself established that the application of the regulations on the matter of occupation depends on the effective military control exercised from outside the nation’s borders, and not from previous sovereignty over the territory of a specific state (HCJ 785/87)
      “So?”
      So your argument does not stand even from the point of view of the HCJ.
      .
      7)
      “How exactly the Forth Convention could be violated if Palestinians are not protected by it?”
      It is a flawed assumption. First because Israel adopted the Forth G.C. and thus if it transfers, through founding and benefits, new settlers in what what the UNSC, the UNGA, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross call “occupied territories”, it means that it is violating the Forth G.C. and so that is not “perfectly legal” to transfer population beyond a line not recognize by anyone, Israel excluded.
      8)
      “you are referring by UNGA resolution 181 of 1947 or are you picking the ones that you don’t like?”
      “Rephrase your question”:
      You understood what I mean. I am not english mother tongue, if you feel uncomfortable with it we can switch to another language.
      9)
      “Jerusalem is holy first and foremost to Jews”: for a Jew, this is certainly true.
      It is an undeniable fact.
      Again, for a Jew yes.
      10)
      About Jerusalem…The mosque of al-Aqsa is certainly the result of
      an interpretation. However, I wonder what difference it makes if Jerusalem is
      explicitly mentioned or not. Everything is an interpretation. Many academics,
      especially Israelis, have shown that the exodus of the Jewish people in
      Egypt is full of distortions, often inventions. This does not change anything for Jewish believers.
      You continue to believe to your myths as well as other people continue to believe
      in theirs. It is not a matter of facts, but of believing. A billion and a half Muslims
      believe in the the night journey of their Prophet towards their
      Jerusalem. This is what counts, unless you don’t want to analyze the veridicity of
      all the events mentioned in the sacred books of the three monotheistic religions to find historical evidence. If so, you would be very disappointed.
      .
      11)
      “Muslims had stolen this land in the name of Allah”.
      So basic. No one stole anything. The population was simply Arabized. In the words of Maxime Rodinson:
      “A foreign people had come and imposed itself on a native population. The Arab population of Palestine were native in all the usual senses of that word. Ignorance, sometimes backed up by hypocritical propaganda, has spread a number of misconceptions on this subject, unfortunately very widely held. It has been said that since the Arabs took the country by military conquest in the seventh century, they are occupiers like any other, like the Romans, the Crusaders and the Turks. Why therefore should they be regarded as any more native than the others, and in particular than the Jews, who were native to that country in ancient times, or at least occupiers of longer standing? To the historian the answer is obvious. A small contingent of Arabs from Arabia did indeed conquer the country in the seventh century. But as a result of factors which were briefly outlined in the first chapter of this book, the Palestinian population soon became Arabized under Arab domination, just as earlier it had been Hebraicized, Aramaicized, to some degree even Hellenized. It became Arab in a way that it was never to become Latinized or Ottomanized. The invaded melted with the invaders. It is ridiculous to call the English of today invaders and occupiers, on the grounds that England was conquered from Celtic peoples by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries. The population was “Anglicized” and nobody suggests that the peoples which have more or less preserved the Celtic tongues – the Irish, the Welsh or the Bretons – should be regarded as the true natives of Kent or Suffolk, with greater titles to these territories than the English who live in those counties.”
      .
      “Any problem?”
      More than one. Ignorance and extremism are not the answers.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        1) “Are Armistice Demarcation Lines(not borders). Period.

        This is nothing but opinion: beyond which no state in the world recognizes Israel’s right to colonize the land.”
        As worthless as an opinion that Israel has no right to exist at all.

        2) The UNGA recognizes the State of Palestine.

        Not just yet.

        >True, we still don’t have clear-cut borders, but following your logic Abu Mazen&co could start to create Palestinian settlements in Israel due to the fact that there are not agreed borders and so Israel is “open”.

        By a letter of a law – they surely could.
        .
        3) I write you that no state in the world recognizes Israel beyond the green line ….

        Since the green line is not an official border world states really have very little right to recognize anything regarding this lines.

        >Please provide me an official position from any international organization or from one single recognized State in which is asserted that the fact that “the armistice agreements of 1949 did not purport to establish definitive boundaries” implies that Israel has the right to colonize and steal the natural resources in what the UNSC, the UNGA, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross call “occupied territories”.

        UNGC, UNGA, EU, US, ICJ, RCC and whoever else might have any opinion on any issue – not that it matters.

        Basically, to call WB an “occupied territory” is a direct violation of relevant conventions.

        For starters you can provide an official position of few relevant organizations which states that “the armistice agreements of 1949 did purport to establish definitive boundaries”
        >4)This does not make less relevant the fact that no 1 among the 193 countries in the UNGA recognizes Israel beyond the Green Line.

        The fact itself is irrelevant – the Green Line is not a border.

        5)The International Court of Justice ruling of 9 July 2004 determined …
        Since some ICJ judges weren’t even sure whether they have authority on the case I’d say that their decision is baseless and politically biased.
        Besides that, it directly contradicts the fourth convention.
        .
        6) The Israeli Supreme Court itself established that the application of the regulations on the matter of occupation depends on the effective military control exercised from outside the nation’s borders, and not from previous sovereignty over the territory of a specific state (HCJ 785/87)
        “So?”
        So your argument does not stand even from the point of view of the HCJ.

        7)It is a flawed assumption. First because Israel adopted the Forth G.C. and thus if it transfers, through founding and benefits, new settlers in what [is] called “occupied territories”, it means that it is violating the Forth G.C.

        UNSC, UNGA, RCC and others could call any territory anything they pleases, however it has nothing to do with the letter of the law. The Fourth G.C. states rather clearly whom it protects and whom it does not. Palestinians not included.

        >and so that is not “perfectly legal” to transfer population beyond a line not recognize by anyone, Israel excluded.
        There are written laws and there are opinions regarding these laws.
        “Palestinians” are not protected by the Fourth G.C. no matter what you or others think or say.

        >“Rephrase your question”:
        You understood what I mean. I am not english mother tongue, if you feel uncomfortable with it we can switch to another language.

        No, I did not. English isn’t my mother tongue as well.

        10)A billion and a half Muslims
        believe in the the night journey of their Prophet towards their Jerusalem.

        Well, a billion and a half Muslims are gravely mistaken than.

        Does it counts? Not really. Rather greatly discredits Islam itself.

        You see, people who believe in things which are known for a fact to be false shouldn’t be trusted.

        >This is what counts, unless you don’t want to analyze the veridicity of all the events mentioned in the sacred books of the three monotheistic religions to find historical evidence. If so, you would be very disappointed.

        Oh, I did that already.
        .
        11)“Muslims had stolen this land in the name of Allah”.
        So basic. No one stole anything. The population was simply Arabized.

        Yeah, we now how it works – you either became alive Muslim or dead Infidel.

        >“Any problem?”
        >More than one. Ignorance and extremism are not the answers.

        I suppose you could start by explaining to a billion and a half muslims that all of them are wrong and Jerusalem has nothing to do with Islam.

        If you live for a day or two we speak again.

        If you don’t – than we’d know that you’ve fallen yet another victim to ignorance and extremism.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          1) “This is nothing but opinion: beyond which no state in the world recognizes Israel’s right to colonize the land.”
          This is a fact. Please prove the contrary.
          .
          2)
          “By a letter of a law – they surely could”: great, so we agree that the Pals could now start to colonize Israel and steal its natural resources. If it will happen, let’s see your reaction.
          3)
          “UNGC, UNGA, EU, US, ICJ, RCC and whoever else might have any opinion on any issue – not that it matters.”
          They are not simply opinions. And the UNGA is the tool that allowed Israel to be created. You use religion and international law/organizations in a very selective way, as a real settler.
          4)
          “to call WB an “occupied territory” is a direct violation of relevant conventions”: so the entire world is crazy. Of course, there is only one chosen people. Why I didn’t think about that.
          5)
          “the Green Line is not a border”: this is less relevant than the fact that no one state or organization in the world recognize israel beyond the green line.
          6)
          “….ICJ judges… their decision is baseless and politically biased”. For you and the settlers, for the rest of the world it matter.
          7)
          The Fourth G.C. states rather clearly how a state can violate the convention. All the rest is secondary.
          .
          8)
          Yes, there are written laws that you consider in a selective way.
          9)
          Again, you understood what I mean.
          .
          10)
          “Well, a billion and a half Muslims are gravely mistaken than”.
          The same is true about the exodus and many other Jewish myths. But no one force you to admit that most of these things are just inventions. Proven inventions, as the “read sea” and the “reed sea”
          11)
          “I suppose you could start by explaining to a billion and a half muslims that all of them are wrong and Jerusalem has nothing to do with Islam”:
          I prefer to start explaining to few millions of Israelis like you that stealing the land of other human beings through a selective use of a religion to which other persons are not obliged to adhere is immoral and not acceptable

          Reply to Comment
    19. Dear 972 writers, I am disappointed that you would describe homes built by Palestinians on Palestinian land as ‘settlements’ in the title. Please correct this.

      Reply to Comment
      • directrob

        And please avoid outpost too.

        Reply to Comment
    20. Shmuel

      @Meron
      “UN Security Council Resolution 242, that you mentioned, noted the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive.”

      Not a problem. That is why Resolution 242 meant negotiations.

      Don’t pick and choose. The resolution also spoke about SECURE and RECOGNISED borders. Here are the exact words:

      ““(ii) … and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

      So put the inadmissability and security clauses together and what have you got?

      You have got the imperative to NEGOTIATE borders. Getting recognised borders through NEGOTIATIONS is NOT getting territories by war. Is it Meron?

      So what was the problem? The problem was and still is that the Arabs did not want to and still don’t want to megotiate. They want to dictate. And that won’t do because no people who START a war which they LOST ever dictated terms. Not ever in human hostory. It is only with Israel that so many fools are trying to create this precedent. But Israel and Israelis will never allow it to happen. Get used to it, Meron.

      Reply to Comment
      • directrob

        Some selective quoting …

        It is easy to convince your Israeli friends, it is much harder to sell this line of reasoning to the world.

        Do not forget resolution 476 or 478 about Jerusalem.

        “Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,”

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          @Directrob
          “Do not forget resolution 476 or 478 about Jerusalem.”

          If you are referring to Israel’s ANNEXATION of Jerusalem, then legally speaking you have a point.

          But it does not mean that:

          1. East Jerusalem belongs exclusively to a future Palestinian state. UN resolution 181 earmarked Jerusalem as an international city. Not as an exclusively Arab city. Its future should be subject to negotiations.

          2. It also does not mean that Israel had no right to allow Jews to return to live in places where they previously lived in East Jerusalem or even to buy new properties.

          Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            My guess is as long as the US protects Israel in the security council there is no need to listen but I think you are wrong:

            As for (1)
            ” Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; ”

            As for (2), specially the way it is implemented, I think this is appropriate:
            “flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians”

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Directrob
            We are talking about legalities here. You said:

            “As for (1)
            ” Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; ”

            “As for (2), specially the way it is implemented, I think this is appropriate:
            “flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians”

            Are you saying that:

            1. East Jerusalem somehow became exclusively Arab? If so how? Because the Arabs managed to ethnically cleanse all Jews from East Jerusalem in 1948?

            2. After the 1967 victory in a defensive war, Israel had a responsibility to keep East Jerusalem Jew free even though East Jerusalem had a Jewish population for thousands of years?

            If thats what you call laws, then you don’t really believe in laws. You believe in obscenities.

            Please don’t bring up the fact that there are Palestinian refugees too. Yes there are. And we know exactly what would have happened had there been an Arab victory in 1967. But there was not. So Israel did exactly what the Arabs would have done. It restored the situation to what existed before 1948 because it was in the position to do it. And no it did not do the same for the Palestinians because it was against its own self interest and because Israelis don’t want to commit national suicide. The Arabs declared that they don’t want to see a Jewish state in the Middle East, even though there are 24 Arab-Muslim states. The Arabs (and the Palestinians) waged continuous war against the Jewish state so Israel had the right to act in its own self interest. Any other people would have behaved the same way.

            Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            I am citing an UNSC resolution. The resolution is clear. Transfer of population is not allowed, it is against international law. Blocking the return of refugees is also against international law.

            After the end of the occupation the Israeli can claim their rights.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Directrob
            “After the end of the occupation the Israeli can claim their rights.”

            What exactly do you mean by that?

            That Israel should withdraw unconditionally? And afterwards beg the Arabs to allow Jews to return to where they lived in East Jerusalem?

            Do you think that would work? Would any other people in Israel’s position be asked to do that? OF COURSE NOT!!! AND YOU KNOW IT!!!! Are you just being perverse?

            Do you know what happened the last time Israel was pressured into doing that? It was in 1956 when Israel wanted a peace deal with Egypt prior to withdrawing from Sinai. But instead it was forced to withdraw unconditionally. What happdned only 11 years later, Directrob? I will tell you what: The Arabs lined up on three of Israel’s borders, they blocked off international water ways and threatened a final solution. Translation: Israael’s destruction.

            So, Directrob, please accept the fact that Israel won’t ever make the same mistake again. Or don’t get it. I don’t really care. But Israel will still act in it’s own self interest. You can like it or you can lump it.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            And what about West Jerusalem?
            Your position seems to be the following: what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            What about it? How many Arabs lived in West Jerusalem prior to 1948?

            And East Jerusalem? Unlike the Arabs who kicked out the Jews in 1948, Israel did not kick out the Arabs of East Jerusalem. In fact, Israel offered ALL the Arabs of East Jerusalem full citizenship. Many of them took up the offer. The rest did not. Their choice and their loss.

            Have you got any other false positions to attribute to me?

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            “How many Arabs lived in West Jerusalem prior to 1948?”
            Katamon, Malha, Silwan, Ayn Karim and MANYother districts in West Jerusalem were fully all almost fully Palestinian. Thousands of Palestinians were expelled in a brutal way.
            .
            “Israel did not kick out the Arabs of East Jerusalem”
            Are you serious? Since 1967, Israel has expropriated 35 percent of the area of East Jerusalem (around 24 square kilometers). New Jewish neighborhoods were built on those lands, with 50,000 housing units.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            East Jerusalem has both Jews and Arabs. I am sure that Israeli Arabs live in West Jerusalem too.

            So what point are you trying to make?

            Reply to Comment
    21. meron

      Trespesser,
      “I mean that recognition or lack of such by any state is nothing but an opinion expressed by a statesmen.”. Are you serious? So for example when a state votes in an official way in order to condemn settlements as illegal is just expressing an opinion? I hope that you realize how weak your position is.

      2)
      “My reaction is unnecessary. Israel is a state and as such it has it’s means of protecting itself.” So Pals cannot protect themselves because you don’t like that the UNGA recognized Palestine as a State? Moreover the fact that for you is only a matter of being recognized as a State shows quite clearly how childish your position is.
      3)
      “they are nothing but opinions of biased, corrupted and uneducated people”: so you imply that all the states of the world and all the international organizations are biased, corrupted and uneducated. I will consider this interesting point.
      4)
      “Israel was created by it’s people”: right, but without the recommendation of the UNGA (+ the Shoah) would be unthinkable to create Israel on a land that until few years before had a population that for 9/10th was composed of Arabs/Palestinians
      5)
      “Majority is ALWAYS wrong. Mathematically”: very democratic, kol hakavod.
      6)
      “If the Green Line is not the border, than by what jurisdiction world countries could recognize where Israel begins and where ends?”.
      I already explain u this point, I just can add that I am glad to realize that the recognized State of Palestine can now starts to colonize Israel, due to the fact that the latter does not have established borders. Or you apply this in 2 directions, or u are once again selective/biased in your approach
      7)
      single positions are irrelevant. What matters is what came out of the ICJ
      8)
      “Yeah, it clearly states that if sovereign of the territory in question is not a signatory of 4GC than the people of that territory are not protected by the 4GC”:
      assumed that this is the case, this does not change the fact that Israel is violating it. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice. All biased? Are you and Israeli settlers the only enlighted people?
      9)
      “While it is not possible to firmly confirm or reject whether exodus or some other events took place indeed, it’s rather easy to prove that Muhammad never went to Jerusalem.”: wrong. Read a bit about the topic and you will discover that exodus and many other things are simple inventions or myths taken by previous pagan practices. People believe in them: that’s what matters.
      10)
      “By what law exactly did Palestinian Arabs had a right to prevent Jewish influx to Palestine?”..I answer u with the words of Nazmi Jubeh:
      “I think that slogans are not useful and do not explain the complexity of things. Any Jew who wants to live in our community, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so. It’s quite a different story, however, to request that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law can ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified. In other words, those who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were already here, and accounted for the vast majority of the local population. This is why there are now over one million Palestinians in Israel, many of whom are known as ‘internally displaced persons’. In constrast to this, settlers arrived in the Palestinian territories through violence and incentives received in recent years from Israeli governments. Equating the former to the latter is not only simplistic, but also morally reprehensible.”
      .
      11)
      “You are probably unaware that first Zionists were nearly completely secular.” Religion was always crucial, also and especially to secular Zionists. Ben-Gurion far and foremost. You should know this.

      Reply to Comment
    22. meron

      @Shmuel
      “The resolution also spoke about SECURE and RECOGNISED borders.” SO what? Does this mean that until Israel does not have recognized borders it can colonize the West Bank? So the State of Palestine can now start to colonize Israel because the latter does not have established borders?
      .
      “Arabs did not want to and still don’t want to megotiate.”
      Israel was only ready to negotiate what it wanted. “We will give u 99% of the West Back”: i.e. 99% of the land that we are ready to negotiate.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        “So the State of Palestine can now start to colonize Israel because the latter does not have established borders?

        Legally speaking, the answer is YES. However, there are two practical impediments;

        1. There is NO state of Palestine no matter how many times you try to pretend that there is one. Legally speaking, there isn’t.

        2. Israel would not let them.

        So what to do? It all comes back to the same thing: NEGOTIATE. Or is that a dirty word for you?

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “There is NO state of Palestine no matter how many times you try to pretend that there is one. Legally speaking, there isn’t”: did thy told you that the UNGA, the same that recommended in 1947 resolution 181, recognized last November Palestine as a State? This is an invention simply because you don’t like it or is there something else? the State of Palestine does not have clear-cut borders exactly as Israel.
          .
          2. “Israel would not let them.” So why Pals should accept that you build your settlements? Simply because they were not a “State”? Do you realize how immoral your position is? You don’t look stupid: cannot be that you don’t notice it.
          3.
          “NEGOTIATE” is a dirty word only if it is used in order to justify and to continue the creation of new settlements and the exploitation of the Palestinian natural resources

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            “did thy told you that the UNGA, the same that recommended in 1947 resolution 181, recognized last November Palestine as a State?”

            As an observer status. Not yet as a state. And in 1948 the Palestinians were the ones to reject UN resolution 181 and chose war on the Jews instead. Get your facts straight. You chose to talk legalities, stick to it.

            “2. “Israel would not let them.” So why Pals should accept that you build your settlements”

            Why indeed? It is their choice. Negotiate, compromise, come to an agreement, get their state, establish it, make peace. Look after the future well being of their kids. Let Israel do the same.

            Or continue what they always did. Continue to be intransigent. Try to destroy Israel.

            “Do you realize how immoral your position is? You don’t look stupid: cannot be that you don’t notice it”

            If wanting Israel to survive and thrive as the only Jewish state in the world is immoral, then so be it. But you know what, Meron? We were mot talking moralities. We were talking legalities. Don’t mix the two. They are not always the same.

            By the way, are you claiming that the Palestinians behaviour towards the Jews was always moral for the last 100 years? If you are, then you would be telling a HUGE LIE.

            “3. “NEGOTIATE” is a dirty word only if it is used in order to justify and to continue the creation of new settlements and the exploitation of the Palestinian natural resources”

            Is that what happened when Ehud Barak agreed to the creation of Palestine on 97% of the West Bank in 2001? Ditto for Olmert in 2008?

            Why didn’t the Palestinians accept that? I will tell you why. Because they insisted on the right of return. Which means that in time, they would have got 100% of Israel too.

            You want me to be moral? If thats what it takes to be moral, then I don’t want to be moral.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            The funnies part is that “morality” is 100% Western concept and is totally alien to all cultures I could think of right now.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            I know what you mean Trespasser. Don’t worry, you are not alone. It is the same feeling that the European colonialists of the XIXth century had when they arrived in Africa.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            @Shmuel
            “As an observer status. Not yet as a state.”: wrong. As non-member state. The difference is big. Study a bit the topic and you will realize why.
            .
            “And in 1948 the Palestinians were the ones to reject UN resolution 181 and chose war on the Jews instead”:
            the pals didn’t reject anything. they had all the right to reject a partition that gave them only the 42% of the total land. but no one asked them to accept or reject anything.
            .
            “Continue to be intransigent. Try to destroy Israel”: it is Israel that is trying to destroy any possible Palestine, not the other way round
            .
            “If wanting Israel to survive and thrive as the only Jewish state in the world is immoral, then so be it”: exploitaing natural resources, building settlements, humiliating million of human being has nothing to do with.. “survive and thrive as the only Jewish state in the world”
            .
            “By the way, are you claiming that the Palestinians behaviour towards the Jews was always moral for the last 100 years?”:
            I never said that.

            Reply to Comment
    23. Shmuel

      @Meron
      “Moreover, even accepting the assumption that final borders should be negotiated”

      That is not an assumption. It is a clause clearly noted in the 1949 armistice agreement. It is clearly implied bu UNSC Resolution 242, by the Road Map and by just about every other legal document.

      “this does not mean that Israel is allowed to steal Pal land and resources.”

      Show me what land did Israel steal? How can it steal land that never belonged to Palestine because there never existed a sovereign state called Palestine.

      If I exasperate you then good. Remember, you are the one who chose to put your arguments into what you thought was a legal framework. But you were proven to be wrong.

      Now, in reality, we both know what has to happen. Negotiations. Serious negotiations. Neither side will get everything that they want. Both sides will have to compromise. Peace and the two state solution will then come to be. But it will never happen if the Palestinians will persist with YOUR line of reasoning.

      Reply to Comment
    24. meron

      Shmuel@
      “Show me what land did Israel steal? How can it steal land that never belonged to Palestine because there never existed a sovereign state called Palestine.”
      You don’t exasperate me at all. You just shows a superficial knowledge of the topic.
      .
      The UNSC, the UNGA, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross…ect… refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as occupied Palestinian territory. What you think or what I think is simply irrelevant.
      .
      The fact that the local majority didn’t have any necessity to use a Western concept (“Palestinian state”), did not make that land less Palestinian and Arab.
      For more practical infos about the stealing of natural resources you can give a look to few hundreds of videos and documents. 2 examples:
      1)
      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/cemex-tries-reason-away-complicity-israeli-violations-international-law
      2)
      http://www.btselem.org/settlements/20100922_israeli_quarries_in_the_west_bank

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        “The UNSC, the UNGA, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross…ect… refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as occupied Palestinian territory. What you think or what I think is simply irrelevant”

        I already answered this nonsense above. I won’t repeat myself.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          Nothing to add about the stealing of the natural resources? Good for you.
          As for the rest, you take little slices of resolution and make out of them eternal truths.
          The fact that final borders should be negotiated does not mean that Israel can continue to steal land and resources, changing the status of the occupied territories (Oslo, remember?). Resolution 242 and almost all the other documents that you quoted clearly pointed out that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible”.
          The fact that you ignore any aspect that you don’t like and instead you choose to focus only on (fake) “serious negotiations” (that enable Israel to continue its colonizing project) shows quite clearly that you don’t know enough the topic.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >(Oslo, remember?)

            Oslo was never made effective by Arafat and has been cancelled by Mahmud Abbas last November.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            “The fact that you ignore any aspect that you don’t like and instead you choose to focus only on (fake) “serious negotiations”

            I already responded to this nonsense too a couple of posts above.

            As for your moralising about what the UN says, spare me. They don’t stand for morals. Nor for what is legal. They stand for power politics and tyranny of the majority. They stand for what the Arab-Muslim block wants.

            I will mention it again because you ignored it the last time. Read this:

            http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/human-rights-day-marred-by-election-of-slave-holding-mauritania-as-vp-of-un

            ““Human Rights Day Marred by Election of Slave-holding Mauritania as VP of UN Human Rights Council”

            And you are trying to tell me that the UN is the upholder of morals and Laws?

            Spare me Meron. Don’t make me laugh because it just is NOT funny. Go preach to someone else.

            Reply to Comment
    25. ruth

      Forth Geneva Convention is Binding even on those who don’t sign it.
      http://www.stanford.edu/group/sper/images/harvardreview.pdf
      1. Although Israel has consistently rejected the formal applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it has referred extensively to some of its provisions to validate the conduct of its administration in the OPT, particularly in terms of security and detention. It is also important to note that Israel has accepted the formal applicability of the Hague Regulations.
      2. The Israeli Supreme Court has played an increasing role over recent years in reviewing the conduct of the Israeli government in the OPT, referring as well to provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
      3. Israeli arguments rejecting the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention are opposed by the other High Contracting Parties, the ICRC and the United Nations.
      4. The Oslo Agreements have had an important impact on the debate regarding the applicability of IHL to the OPT. However, the impact is subject to the implementation of the Agreements, which is in doubt since the re-emergence of hostilities.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Para 101:…[T]he 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 Jordon were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that the 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.

        A mere advisory (the court considers, not rules out) of a non-biding body with questionable jurisdiction over the issue.

        By the way, Jordan and Egypt were not legitimate authorities of territories in question. On what basis exactly did the 4GC became binding there?

        If you want to make up new laws you’ll have to rewrite conventions, not any less.

        Reply to Comment
        • ruth

          The opinion of the court is for sure relevant, as relevant is the one of the Red Cross, still responsible for such international conventions.
          But I see your point. If you are searching for a biding document you can start with United Nations Security Council resolution 476, adopted on 30 June 1980. It declared that “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
          As for me, I would not resort to the FGC, the League of Nations or other events happened many decades or centuries ago. When Israel unilaterally proclaimed its independence the world slowly recognized it within the green line. The world since then went much further. People that continue to write about article 80 of the UN charter live in a bubble and the only way to awake them is to use their own selective devices.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >If you are searching for a biding document you can start with United Nations Security Council resolution 476, adopted on 30 June 1980. It declared that “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention

            Resolution above is based on a rather questionable interpretation.

            However it is of rather little importance.
            What matters is fact that Arabs had denied the to comply with all and any “pro-Israeli” resolutions, including 181.

            Strangely, they seem to think that they can decline peace, start and lose few wars and return to negotiations table to demand an offer they’ve already refused.

            Naive or stupid?

            Reply to Comment
          • ruth

            “Resolution above is based on a rather questionable interpretation. However it is of rather little importance”.
            Me and the UNSC will take in consideration your point of view.
            .
            “What matters is fact that Arabs had denied the to comply with all and any “pro-Israeli” resolutions, including 181.”
            Rubbish. Still, do you know the difference between a recommendation and a binding resolution or between the UNGA and the UNSC?
            .
            “Naive or stupid?”
            I guess ignorant and problematic.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Me and the UNSC will take in consideration your point of view.

            Knock yourselves out.

            >Rubbish.

            Yeah, whatever contradicts your theories is certainly rubbish.

            >Still, do you know the difference between a recommendation and a binding resolution

            I see your point. Well, technically – yes. The 181 resolution is non binding. Wanna ask us out?

            >or between the UNGA and the UNSC?

            Not much difference. Both are pawns to power games. As it could be seen throughout history UNGA resolutions could become binding and UNSC resolutions could be completely ignored.

            >I guess ignorant and problematic.

            Ignorant? Hardly. Merely have a different perspective.

            Problematic? Definitely.

            Reply to Comment
    26. Besides the terrible historical and population/geographic circumstances, I believe we are dealing at bottom with dualing victimizations: whose victimization is greater and what that victimization justifies. Both sides have been victimized and both sides need to recognize each others victimization.

      In the US, our victimization (9/11, embassy attacks) is used to justify wars of aggression and the use of disproportionate force, which only increases the hostility (originally based on support for oppressive regimes and our oversees bases?) towards us.

      Those who are not parties to the disputes are the most likely to see where justice and potential peace lie.

      Reply to Comment
    27. Shmuel

      @Meron
      @directrob

      You both accused me of selectively quoting the UN.

      It is true that I spoke about UN Resolutions 242

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        @directrob

        You both accused me of selectively quoting the UN.

        It is true that I spoke about UN Resolutions 181 and 242. Not because I was selective but to show you that you are selective for ignoring the bits that don’t suit you.

        As for me, as I mentioned at least twice above that I have nothing but contempt and disdain for the UN. I mentioned, twice, the election of slave holding Mauritania to the Vice Presidency of the UN Human Rights Council yet you had nothing to say about that. But you are the moral ones? And I am selective? Don’t make me laugh.

        Reply to Comment
    28. meron

      Shmuel@ I have nothing to add
      Trespasser, “What matters is fact that Arabs had denied the to comply with all and any “pro-Israeli” resolutions, including 181″: so these resolution matter or not:-?
      “whatever contradicts your theories is certainly rubbish”: are you speaking about yourselves? Ruth mentioned a binding resolution of the UNSC. You answer that it is irrelevant (sic!). Then you answer “What matters is fact that Arabs had denied the to comply with all and any “pro-Israeli” resolutions, including 181″:
      make peace with yourselves.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Meron,
        >“What matters is fact that Arabs had denied the to comply with all and any “pro-Israeli” resolutions, including 181″: so these resolution matter or not:-?

        They matter as long as ALL concerned parties are keeping to them.

        Arabs had chosen to ignore UN resolutions regarding with Jews, Israel only followed.

        >“whatever contradicts your theories is certainly rubbish”: are you speaking about yourselves?

        Since you were not able to produce even 1 (one) unquestionable argument…

        >Ruth mentioned a binding resolution of the UNSC. You answer that it is irrelevant (sic!). Then you answer “What matters is fact that Arabs had denied the to comply with all and any “pro-Israeli” resolutions, including 181″:

        UNSC is not a legislative body.

        Mentioned “binding” resolution is in direct contradiction with the written law – the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is why the resolution was not enforced, by the way.

        >make peace with yourselves.

        As soon as you stop inventing laws and nations.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “Since you were not able to produce even 1 (one) unquestionable argument”:
          not only you didn’t provide one single unquestionable argument, but you were also unable to quote single international organization or body that support your position. You fly down, although you are convince otherwise.
          .
          “UNSC is not a legislative body”: Still, is more relevant than the law or the opinion of the occupier.
          IF the International Court of Justice is not a legislative body, the settlers and their sympathizers are even less so.
          .
          “Mentioned “binding” resolution is in direct contradiction with the written law – the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is why the resolution was not enforced, by the way.”: are you drank? the Fourth Geneva Convention was not enforced simply because the occupier prefers to judge himself instead of caring of the opinion of every single international organization.
          .
          again, you have to justify why Israel can occupy the West Bank. not the other way round. until now you were not able to provide any concrete consideration that supports what you claim

          Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “Arabs had chosen to ignore UN resolutions regarding with Jews, Israel only followed”:
          please quote for me one single binding resolution (UNSC) that the Pals ignored. I can provide you plenty of cases about Israel

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >please quote for me one single binding resolution (UNSC) that the Pals ignored.

            Each and every single one of them.

            It is very easy to disprove my claims – provide proof of Palestinian compliance with ANY resolution, decision or international law, binding or not.

            Reply to Comment
    29. Shmuel

      @Meron
      “Shmuel@ I have nothing to add”

      What, you can’t even defend the UN for electing a slave holding country like Mauritania to hold the vice presidency of the UN human rights council? And on Human Rights day to boot?

      You still respect rulings by such a corrupt body which lacks any moral compass?

      Well, what can I say? I thought you were critical of me for not being moral. But it seems you don’t want to be worried about the morality of the much revered UN which you like to quote so much.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        Oh and I also asked you why didn’t the Palestinians accept either the 2001 or 2008 Israeli peace offers?

        Had they accepted it, they would now have their own state and there would not be a need to carp, whine and whinge about settlements, theft and occupation.

        So you have nothing to add about why they did not accept those offers?

        Reply to Comment
        • directrob

          So about the whole world tells Israel not to build on E!. International law tells Israel not to build on E1 and Human rights conventions tell Israel not to build on E1. Except for the right of the strongest Israel has no right whatsoever to build houses for Israeli on E1 or anywhere else in the West Bank. All settlements are illegal.

          Nothing you say or said can change that. Nothing more to add.

          Reply to Comment
      • meron

        So is it Israel, the occupier, the only “legal body” on which we should rely? You are funny.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          @Meron
          “So is it Israel, the occupier, the only “legal body” on which we should rely?”

          No. Not at all. Rely on the written law objectively. Rely on precedents. And if there are no written laws or exact precedents then recognise that fact and make a serious attempt to formulate new laws objectively.

          That is how the law works. Not through power blocs in the UN. Nor the threat of oil embargoes.

          To tell the truth, the world (and the UN) as it is organise today is incapable of doing that. So the best thing to do would be to admit it instead of trying to use lawfare to force Israel to do things that suit power blocs but not Israel.

          To put it into perspective, before there was a UN or a league of nations, thats how things used to work. The big boys pushed or tried to push the little boys around. They did so quite openly and unlike now, there was no sanctimony or hypocrisy about it.

          Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Shmuel,
            “The big boys pushed or tried to push the little boys around. They did so quite openly and unlike now, there was no sanctimony or hypocrisy about it.”:
            Do you want to go back to the “law of the jungle” times with “big boys” and so on? Great idea!
            Yes, right, the law.
            The Israeli legal argument was dismissed by the International Court of Justice. The Court cited the Geneva Convention’s travaux préparatoires which recommended that the conventions be applicable to any armed conflict “whether [it] is or is not recognized as a state of war by the parties” and “in cases of occupation of territories in the absence of any state of war” as confirmation that the drafters of the article had no intention of restricting the scope of its application.
            This the thing more close to “international law” that you can find around. The alternative, your alternative, is to rely on the law of the occupier.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            “Do you want to go back to the “law of the jungle” times with “big boys” and so on? Great idea!”

            No, not really. But I have news for you: we never left the law of the jungle. Thats how things still operate. The only difference is that now some parties pretend that the UN sets the rules fairly and justly. But it is just pretence and hypocrisy.

            If the choice is between what we have today, hypocrisy rather than the rule of law, then I would rather not pretend to have laws and sort things out the old way.

            What I WOULD prefer though ARE real laws, applied consistently and without fear or favour for everyone. Can you stand in front of a mirror, stare in your own eyes and honestly say that it is what we have today, Meron?

            Reply to Comment
    30. Shmuel

      @Directrob
      “So about the whole world tells Israel not to build on E!. International law tells Israel not to build on E1 and Human rights conventions tell Israel not to build on E1. and Human rights conventions tell Israel not to build on E1″

      I answered all of that above. But you choose to ignore everything. Fine, that can work both ways.

      “All settlements are illegal.”

      NOT!!!

      “Nothing you say or said can change that.”

      Not in your mind obviously. But nothing you say or said can change my mind. How is that for equal opportunity?

      ” Nothing more to add”

      Ditto.

      Reply to Comment
    31. meron

      Shmuel,
      I never wrote that the UN is the source eternal of justice. it is, however, like the concept of democracy: the best tool created until now in order to legitimize, through internationalization, a decision.
      Israel was created mainly, not only, but mainly, through a problematic decision of the 56 states that in 1947 formed the UNGA.
      .
      “Had they accepted it, they would now have their own state and there would not be a need to carp, whine and whinge about settlements, theft and occupation”:
      basic propaganda.
      Among the main concerns with Barak’s offer were Barak’s demand to annex large settlement blocs (9% of the West Bank) with no Israeli land given to a proposed Palestinian state in return, the lack of contiguity that the settlement blocs cause for a Palestinian state, lack of trust in the commitment and/or possibility of the Israeli government to evacuate the thousands of non-bloc Israeli settlers in the 15-year timeline, limited sovereignty for Palestinians in Jerusalem (the historically important Arab neighborhoods such as SHEIKH JARRAH, SILWAN,and AT-TUR..ect… would remain under Israeli sovereignty, while Palestinians would only have sovereignty over the outer Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem), the lack of Palestinian sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem (Palestinians would only receive “administrative control” over their holy sites, and the Old City’s Muslim and Christian Quarters, however Israel was to receive complete sovereignty over Jewish holy sites, and the Old City’s Jewish and Armenian Quarters).
      …….
      In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David”

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “I never wrote that the UN is the source eternal of justice”

        I am glad that you did not. Because if you would have, you would be wrong.

        “Israel was created mainly, not only, but mainly, through a problematic decision of the 56 states that in 1947 formed the UNGA”

        “Not only” is very right. Israel was created mostly because the Jews of Palestine were determined enough and able enough to stand up for their own rights to gain self determination.

        Granted though, the UN vote facilitated the creation of Israel and yes it was important but definitely not the most important factor.

        “Basic propaganda
        Among the main concerns with Barak’s offer were Barak’s demand to annex large settlement blocs (9% of the West Bank) …”

        Not true!
        In Taba in 2001, Barak offered the equivalent of 97% of the West Bank, with land swaps. The negotiations failed mainly because Arafat insisted on the Right of Return. Clinton clearly blamed Arafat.

        In 2008, Olmert offered even a better deal. Condaliza Rice too stated in her memoirs (recently published) that she was surprised that Abbas procrastinated till it was too late.

        In any case, getting back to 2001, was the Intifada the appropriate response to Barak’s offer? And please don’t try to blame it on Sharon because Suha Arafat recently admitted that her husband told her that he was planning an intifada after he felt pressured to accept offer in Taba. Do you know what damage that caused in the psyche of the average Israeli? I’ll tell you. We no longer trust the Palestinians. We now insist on much more stringent conditions before we believe them that they have come to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. In the meanwhile we are willing to back only tough leaders. The Palestinians better mull over that and start changing their approach. Otherwise there will be no progress. The way we see it, there is nothing to lose.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          The following exchange between Arafat and Clinton, says it all:

          “You are a great man,” Arafat told Clinton after Camp David II. Clinton responded, “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one.”

          Reply to Comment
        • meron

          Without that resolution (181) Israel would not be there.
          As for Taba, you write what u wish, not what happened.
          I want to remind you that in Taba many districts of East Jerusalem like sheikh jarrah, at-tur, silwan.ect….would have remain under israeli control, while, no one discussed Palestinian property claims in West Jerusalem.
          Moreover to blame only Pals for its failure is ridicolous.

          In a desperate attempt to salvage the peace effort before Israel’s election (hard-liner Ariel Sharon was forecast to defeat Barak) negotiators met in the Egyptian resort of Taba, focusing on new parameters for an agreement which had been developed by Clinton the previous month. The new terms went further than what Israel and the U.S. had offered at Camp David.

          In contrast to Camp David, the Palestinians this time made counter-offers. After a week of off-and-on negotiations, senior Palestinian and Israeli negotiators announced they had never been more close to reaching agreement on final-status issues. But they had run out of political time. They couldn’t conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. “We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of stiriking a final deal,” said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel’s negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, “My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement.”
          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oslo/negotiations/
          .
          .
          As for Oslo, THESE ARE SOME OF THE POINTS WHY THE “GENEROUS OFFER” IS A MYTH.
          ….
          1) “the lack of contiguity that the settlement blocs cause for a Palestinian state, lack of trust in the commitment and/or possibility of the Israeli government to evacuate the thousands of non-bloc Israeli settlers in the 15-year timeline,
          ….
          2) limited sovereignty for Palestinians in Jerusalem (the historically important Arab neighborhoods such as Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan,and At-Tur would remain under Israeli sovereignty, while Palestinians would only have sovereignty over the outer Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem),

          3) the lack of Palestinian sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem (Palestinians would only receive “administrative control” over their holy sites, and the Old City’s Muslim and Christian Quarters, however Israel was to receive complete sovereignty over Jewish holy sites, and the Old City’s Jewish and Armenian Quarters).
          ….
          4) “…Barak’s demand to annex large settlement blocs (9% of the West Bank) with no Israeli land given to a proposed Palestinian state in return,

          5) ect….. fot other points consult this:
          http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/aug/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/?page=3

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “Palestinian and Israeli negotiators announced they had never been more close to reaching agreement on final-status issues. But they had run out of political time.”

            Isn’t that the game that the Palestinians always play? Thats exactly what Abbas did with Olmert too in 2008. They waste time, procastrinate, stop negotiations till it is too late. That’s what they did in 2000 too.

            “On July 24, 2000, after fourteen straight days of negotiations at the Camp David II presidential retreat, President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasir Arafat returned to their respective countries unable to reach a deal. Despite the summit’s failure to produce a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Agreements, Arafat requested another meeting. Nearly five months later, the parties reconvened at the White House on December 19, 2000, and following separate meetings with both parties, Clinton offered his last proposal. Barak, who had wagered his political career on the potential deal, endorsed it. Arafat made no counteroffer and gave no explanation. Instead, he simply walked away.”

            http://www.hnlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Rosenberg-Negotiation-Final-Paper-1.pdf

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            And what about the Intifada? You did not answer my question about it. Why did Arafat respond with the Intifada to Barak’s Camp David offer? By the time they gave it a last try in Taba, the Intifada was raging for months. Do you think that made things easier?

            I think that act alone ensured Sharon’s victory in the elections. I also think that Arafat wanted exactly that.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >for other points consult this

            Reasons “why” Palestinians had declined to have own state is really of little interest.

            Sufficient is that they had willingly chosen not to be protected by the law.

            Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          “Suha Arafat recently admitted that her husband told her that he was planning an intifada after he felt pressured to accept offer in Taba”

          Correction, NOT Taba but Camp David.

          Reply to Comment
    32. meron

      Shmuel/directrob,
      “All settlements are illegal.”
      It does not matter what you or Israel think about it. The entire world and all the international organizations think so. You and Israel, in these respect, are irrelevant. The occupier, of course, does not perceive himself as such. Like a murder would never condemn his own crimes.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “The entire world and all the international organizations think so”

        Not the entire world and not all who do think so, do it for the reasons that you claim. Many think so because they think that Israel is the only party that can be made to back down and they think that would end the conflict. But they are wrong.

        If what “the entire world thinks” would be a criteria for what is right, then slavery was right. Because at one stage the entire world condoned slavery.

        But the thinking of most of the world changed on slavery and it will change about Israel too. When? When oil won’t be that important and after the Arabs will once again overplay their hand, as they always do.

        Remember, the only thing that is constant is change. Watch this space.

        Reply to Comment
    33. meron

      To compare “slavery” to the legitimacy of settlements is so hilarious.
      Oil has nothing to do with these issues. All the international organizations consider settlements illegal. They are not fanatic organization that support genocide and slavery. They are the main source of international law. they are not perfect, but they tend toward justice. The fact that you ignore this, the fact that you compare settlers to “antislavery” fighters”, the fact that you don’t realize that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law cannot ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified, is a symptom of a problematic person. Who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >All the international organizations consider settlements illegal.

        There is a written law that states otherwise.

        >but they tend toward justice

        do you really honestly believe it that?

        >defiance of international law

        Could you please specify the law? (not “resolutions”, “considerations” or “recommendations”)

        >Who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists.

        Palestinians had DECLINED to have a state. They are outlaws by their own choice. One of worst examples of implementation of right to self determination ever.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          yes, your law, the law of the occupier. the rest of the world choose another way. sorry for you and the for the bubble in which you live

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >in defiance of international law

            You still haven’t specified relevant international laws.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            I provided all the answers that you need. This despite the fact that it is you that have to explain to the rest of the world which right has the occupier to exploit the natural resources of the occupied. Not the other way round

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Meron,
            >I provided all the answers that you need.

            You provided zero valuable information.

            >This despite the fact that it is you that have to explain to the rest of the world which right has the occupier to exploit the natural resources of the occupied.

            The world still has to explain by what law these territories can’t be exploited.

            >Not the other way round

            It depends.

            Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “they are not perfect, but they tend toward justice. The fact that you ignore this, …”

        You are the one who ignores the track record of the UN.

        “They are not perfect” you say? That is an understatement. They just about put an araonist in charge of the fire brigade. A slave holding country (800,000 slaves) was elected to hold the vice presidency of the UN Human Rights Commission and all you can say is that they are not perfect?

        “the fact that you compare settlers to “antislavery” fighters”,

        I did no such thing. I said that in the same way that the world came around and rejected slavery, it will change its thinking about the I-P conflict too. It will come to view things in a more balanced way. Not just blame Israel reflexively for everything that goes wrong. Even though, to use your phrase, Israel too is not perfect.

        Reply to Comment
    34. meron

      “changing its thinking about the I-P conflict too” has nothing to do with the attempt to give legitimacy to the construction of new settlements and with the ongoing process of stealing pal resources:
      For more practical infos about the stealing of natural resources you can give a look to few hundreds of videos and documents. 2 examples:
      1)
      http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/cemex-tries-reason-away-complicity-israeli-violations-international-law
      2)
      http://www.btselem.org/settlements/20100922_israeli_quarries_in_the_west_bank
      Can you please condemn these disgusting practices? Or do yo prefer to ignore international law in favour of the “law of the occupier”?
      I feel pity for you, but, most of all, I feel pity for the Palestinian people, obliged to deal with people like you.
      I don’t know if you believe or not, but you can be sure that in this life or in the next one you will get back everything.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/cemex-tries-reason-away-complicity-israeli-violations-international-law

        “The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination and Israel’s status as the occupying power in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 2004″

        That’s not truth. The very jurisdiction of the court is questionable.

        >Or do yo prefer to ignore international law …

        Provide specific law which is violated.

        >I feel pity for the Palestinian people, obliged to deal with people like you.

        “Palestinian people” willingly preferred to remain stateless outlaws, thus leaving no choice but to deal with them as such.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “That’s not truth. The very jurisdiction of the court is questionable”:
          look the video. I don’t car what you or the writer of that article wrote. The video speaks louder than any word.
          .
          “The very jurisdiction of the court is questionable”:
          Is questionable for you and few other extremists. For the rest of the world is much more questionable the jurisdiction of the occupier.
          The resolution of the UNSC are binding for the entire world.
          United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared the annexation of Jerusalem “null and void”
          United Nations Security Council resolution 476, adopted on 30 June 1980, declared that “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
          .
          By definition, a State cannot belligerently occupy its own territory. Therefore, both the ICJ and the UN Security Council do not consider that Israel has a legally valid claim to these territories under international law.
          .
          I don’t care if you dislike or not the Security Council, international law, international organizations…ect: it is your problem, not mine
          ..
          “Provide specific law which is violated.”
          - Forth Geneva Convention
          - Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
          - Hague Regulations of 1907
          “settlements remain illegal under international law, irrespective of recent decisions by the government of Israel. The EU reiterates that it will not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.”
          .
          “Palestinian people willingly preferred to remain stateless outlaws, thus leaving no choice but to deal with them as such”:
          Pals has the terrible misfortune to meet in their way millions of human beings from other continents persuaded that religion is not a private matter but instead a political tool.
          Palestine is now recognized by the UNGA as a non-member State. True, it does not have clear-cut borders. Yes, exactly like the occupier

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Meron,

            >I don’t car what you or the writer of that article wrote.

            That I’ve noticed already.

            >The video speaks louder than any word.

            What exactly is wrong with quarrying limestone?

            >Is questionable for you and few other extremists.

            You think that your ignorance is sufficient reason for Judge Owada
            to forgive you calling him an extremist? Ask him, if you dare.

            >For the rest of the world is much more questionable the jurisdiction of the occupier.

            Accordingly to the letter of international law there is no occupier. Are you mass hallucinating?

            >The resolution of the UNSC are binding for the entire world.

            Theoretically, yes.

            >United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared the annexation of Jerusalem “null and void”

            Because it’s Holy City? Jewish Holy City? Since when UNSC has authority over Holy Cities?

            >United Nations Security Council resolution 476, adopted on 30 June 1980, declared that “… and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

            We’ve been through that already. UNSC is not a legislative body and can’t change laws at it’s discretion.

            >”By definition, a State cannot belligerently occupy its own territory.”

            Term “belligerent occupation” simply does not fit the situation.

            “Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily.”

            >I don’t care if you dislike or not the Security Council, international law, international organizations…ect: it is your problem, not mine

            It’s not that I dislike them – I just have no illusions regarding these bodies – unlike you.

            >“Provide specific law which is violated.”
            - Forth Geneva Convention
            - Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
            - Hague Regulations of 1907

            Specific – means specific paragraph.

            >“settlements remain illegal under international law… The EU reiterates that it will not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 …”

            Again, an opinion of non-lawmaking body.

            “Palestinian people willingly preferred to remain stateless outlaws, thus leaving no choice but to deal with them as such”:

            >Pals has the terrible misfortune to meet in their way millions of human beings from other continents persuaded that religion is not a private matter but instead a political tool.

            Nonsense in it’s purest form. Nonsense plasma so to say.

            >Palestine is now recognized by the UNGA as a non-member State. True, it does not have clear-cut borders. Yes, exactly like the occupier

            A rather laughable recognition.

            A non-member state without legitimate representation? Or maybe there are two Palestinian states now?

            Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “Changing its thinking about the I-P conflict too” has nothing to do with the attempt to give legitimacy to the construction of new settlements”

        It isn’t an ATTEMPT. There is nothing in current international laws (real laws that is rather than polemics) which prohibit the “settlements”. I will argue about that with you or anyone else for as long as it takes.

        If however you argue that building at least some of the settlements is not wise or does not help the prospects of peace, or hurts the Palestinians or hurts Israel, then we might find some common ground.

        But if you base your argument on legality then we have a profound difference.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “I will argue about that with you or anyone else for as long as it takes”: you can argue with the entire world. At the end you will always go back to the starting point: no state int he world recognize Israel beyond the green line. ergo, beyond the green line Israel is occupying land that non one in the world considers Israeli. again, it is a fact that your position is shared only by the settlers. so you can continue to live in your bubble: no one cares about it.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >no state int he world recognize Israel beyond the green line. ergo, beyond the green line Israel is occupying land that non one in the world considers Israeli.

            Recognition of international community has nothing to do the the legal status of “occupation”

            By you standards if SOME countries would recognize that territory it would become less occupied.

            Reply to Comment
    35. Shmuel

      @Meron
      “no state int he world recognize Israel beyond the green line”

      Thats your legal argument? Then let me diffuse it AGAIN:

      They don’t have to recognise it. The only time that they would need to recognise it would be if after negotiations, both Israel and the Palestinians would agree that the “settlements” are part of Israel.

      In the meanwhile, Israel has not annexed the territories that the settlements are on, so there is nothing to recognise.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “no state int he world recognize Israel beyond the green line”

        So what ? If the whole world would deny that the earth is spherical but claim insted that it if flat, would yo agree with them?

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          @Meron

          That was a rhetorical question. Of course you would.

          Reply to Comment
        • meron

          wow, you have really convincing arguments:-) so let’s rely on the opinion of the occupier and let’s ignore the rest of the world:-)

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            No. Lets rely on REAL laws which are written down in documents and agreements and which are based on precedent. Not majority vote.

            Or, if you want to have the rule of power politics based on who has the best alliances financed by such thing as oil, then call a spade a spade. Don’t call it LAW. Because it just ain’t LAW.

            Call it what it IS: POWER POLITICS. Or if you want, I’ll give you another apt word: LAWFARE which is a word playing on the word WARFARE. In other words, using pseudo law to wage war on the targeted party in order to pressure them to do what you want them to do. That is nothing different from the law of the jungle that you were so critical of in your earlier post. Except of course it is more hypocritical.

            Get it now, Meron?

            Reply to Comment
    36. meron

      “Thats your legal argument?”
      I provided you plenty of legal arguments, but you continue to ignore them. Not that I care, but that’s it.
      Another example. Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 clearly bound the occupier to use the resources in the occupied land only for the needs and benefits of the occupied people.
      The reality is instead that some 94 percent of the materials produced in the Israeli quarries in the West Bank (without speaking about water) is transported to Israel, accounting for the needs of more than a quarter of the market.
      You want to ignore international law and the opinions of all the international organizations: you are free to do so, but you have to be aware that you are on the wrong side of history as well as of international law.
      .
      “The only time that they would need to recognise it would be if after negotiations, both Israel and the Palestinians would agree that the “settlements” are part of Israel”:
      why after negotiations? Palestine is already recognized as a non-member state by the UNGA. In 1948 Israel unilaterally selfproclaimed itself as an independent state. Why Pals should now ask the permission of the occupier in order to do the same?
      .
      “Israel has not annexed the territories that the settlements are on, so there is nothing to recognise.”
      but Israel is exploiting that land, so it is irrelevant or at least secondary if it annexes them or not.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        I am not responding in detail because I already responded to everything that you say above. Repeating ourselves does not serve any purpose.

        I will say this though. So long as people like you take one sided positions, ignore history, context and adopt a partisan position in favor of the Palestinians. People like me will do likewise in favour of Israel.

        The argument-discussion that you and I had above is a mirror image of what has gone wrong in the Middle East. Both sides dug in and entreanched their positions. Peace will not be achieved that way.

        The day that both sides wake up to that truth and start seeing the other sides grievances too, thats when peace will be possible.

        At least two of Israel’s leaders already tried that since 2000. But they found no peace partners. Consequently, Israelis elected two hard line leaders after each of those attempts.

        It is high time now for the Palestinians to try and display some wisdom. But people like you and Directrob, only give them endless excuses not to do so.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          Shmuel, no one mentioned the Hague convention before in this post. You simply don’t have arguments, as already happened.
          Your positions are extremely weak. I don’t know if you are aware of it.

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            Even your Hague convention argument causes me to repeat myself.

            It talks about “occupied land”. While I have no problems with the idea that some of the land can be considered as occupied. because clearly the Palestinians are entitled to some of the land. My problem is that since there NEVER was a sovereign Arab Palestine, I don’t know exactly which bits of the land will end up being theirs.

            The only way to sort it out is through negotiations culminating in a mutual agreement. As specified by the signed 1949 armistice deal and UNSC Resolution 242 which both parties ratified.

            Until that happens, Meron, how can one know that Gush Etzion for instance is on occupied land or not?

            See the difference? The above is not dependent on opinion or majority vote. A problem was identified, a process was developed to resolve the problem and all parties ratified the process. Unfortunately though, the Palestinians and their allies (people like you Meron) hit upon the bright idea that the process shuld be ignored becuse through power politics you can badger Israel to accept your dictates.

            But it won’t work Meron. Because we are not stupid.

            Reply to Comment
    37. ruth

      It has been argued that Israel’s right to the Occupied Palestinian Territories derives from the Mandate for Palestine of 1922[14] which includes the provision that Jewish immigration and their close settlement shall be facilitated.[15] This would, first of all, require that rights obtained from a mandate given by the League of Nations over 90 years ago still apply today. In its advisory opinion on the International Status of South-West Africa the ICJ established that the mandate system remains in force even though the League of Nations ceased to exist.[16] It could be claimed that under this assumption the Jewish right to ‘close settlement’ in the whole of the mandate territory does still exist.[17] However, after the General Assembly had decided the partition of the territory in 1948[18] and the state of Israel was established, the Jewish people’s rights under the mandate have been fulfilled and they no longer have the right to settle in the former Mandate territory except for the state of Israel.[19] Moreover, the right to Jewish settlement in the mandate territories was not unlimited but conditioned on the preservation of “the rights and position of other sections of the population”.[20] Such civil and religious rights of the Palestinian populations are certainly violated by on-going Israeli settlement in Palestine.[21]
      As a result, Israel’s claim of having a legal entitlement to build Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories does not find support in international law. This conclusion has been emphasized by the highest political and judicial international authorities: the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice find that the legal status of the Palestinian territories is that of occupied territories and not of disputed territories. [22] By definition, a State cannot belligerently occupy its own territory. Therefore, both the ICJ and the UN Security Council do not consider that Israel has a legally valid claim to these territories under international law.
      http://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/14/the-legality-of-israeli-settlements-in-the-occupied-palestinian-territories-under-international-law/

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        What I was missing is an opinion of undergraduate student.

        A rather poor one to tell the truth.

        “Since Israel does not have a legal entitlement to the territories which it conquered in 1967, these territories could, a priori, be considered occupied territories with the consequence that Israel became an occupying power”

        Since territories in question were not part of any state these territories could not be considered occupied by the letter of law.

        Ruth, are you capable of thinking of some arguments by yourself, or all you can do is copy-paste?

        Reply to Comment
        • ruth

          Trespasser@
          “What I was missing is an opinion of undergraduate student”: first, he is a phd candidate. I strongly doubt, on the other side, that you have a PhD. Second, as Celine, wrote, when you don’t have arguments you tend to criticize the poet and not the poem
          .
          “Since territories in question were not part of any state these territories could not be considered occupied by the letter of law”:
          it is an interpretation dismissed by all international organizations.
          The Geneva Convention’s travaux préparatoires which recommended that the conventions be applicable to any armed conflict “whether it is or is not recognized as a state of war by the parties” and “in cases of occupation of territories in the absence of any state of war” as confirmation that the drafters of the article had no intention of restricting the scope of its application.
          .
          Moreover, as noted above, the Israeli Supreme Court itself established that the application of the regulations on the matter of occupation depends on the effective military control exercised from outside the nation’s borders, and not from previous sovereignty over the territory of a specific state (HCJ 785/87)
          .
          “It was Palestinian Arabs who decided that they do not want to be citizens in a Jewish national home”: these pals are really crazy. Why they didn’t catch such an opportunity??? Why the 9/10th of the total population did not hope to become part of a Jewish National Home???? they are crazy, crazy terrorists with blood on their hands:-)
          .
          You just invent history:
          Churchill:
          “Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded “in Palestine.”

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >first, he is a phd candidate.

            Whatever. Academic degrees does not make people inherently right, you know.

            >I strongly doubt, on the other side, that you have a PhD.

            Whatever.

            >Second, as Celine, wrote, when you don’t have arguments you tend to criticize the poet and not the poem

            I think I’ve criticized the poem well enough.

            >“Since territories in question were not part of any state these territories could not be considered occupied”

            >it is an interpretation dismissed by all international organizations.

            It is the letter of the law.

            >as confirmation that the drafters of the article had no intention of restricting the scope of its application.

            THIS is interpretation. I don’t think that the Red Cross have technologies to resurrect the dead and ask what they’ve intended a hundred years ago.

            >Moreover, as noted above, the Israeli Supreme Court itself established that the application of the regulations on the matter of occupation depends on the effective military control exercised from outside the nation’s borders, and not from previous sovereignty over the territory of a specific state (HCJ 785/87)

            So?

            >these pals are really crazy. Why they didn’t catch such an opportunity???

            Because a great many of the couldn’t accept that dirty Jews would become rulers of great Muslims.

            >they are crazy, crazy terrorists with blood on their hands:-)

            You said that.

            >Churchill:
            “Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded “in Palestine.”

            You should read the full mandate text. Should I google it for you?

            Opinion of Mr. (or Sir?) Churchill. with all due respect, is of a little interest compared to written agreements.

            Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        “Moreover, the right to Jewish settlement in the mandate territories was not unlimited but conditioned on the preservation of “the rights and position of other sections of the population””

        Why not the entire article?
        “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

        Basically, Jews were given entire Palestine to build a country for all it’s citizens. It was Palestinian Arabs who decided that they do not want to be citizens in a Jewish national home.

        Good riddance, for all I care.

        Reply to Comment
    38. ruth

      “Whatever. Academic degrees does not make people inherently right, you know.”
      Are you kidding me? You write that “what I was missing is an opinion of undergraduate student” and then, once that I complain for your sentence, you reply that “Academic degrees does not make people inherently right, you know”.
      You should find a good psicologyst, a very good one.
      .
      “I think I’ve criticized the poem well enough”:
      you didn’t present one single poignant argomentation, hope you realize it.
      .

      “I don’t think that the Red Cross have technologies to resurrect the dead and ask what they’ve intended a hundred years ago”:
      no need to resurrect anyone, the Geneva Convention’s travaux préparatoires is a well preserved document that you can easily find.
      .
      So?
      So also the Israeli HCJ, beside the rest of the world, recognizes that what you claim is basic propaganda
      .
      “Because a great many of the couldn’t accept that dirty Jews would become rulers of great Muslims”:
      they were the 9/10th of the total population. Why the huge local majority was suppose to accept to be ruled by a little minority of immigrants from other parts of the world?
      .
      .
      “You should read the full mandate text. Should I google it for you?”
      Just the part of the mandate that says that all Palestine was supposed to be Jewish: btw, something never ever happened in the history
      .
      “Opinion of Mr. (or Sir?) Churchill. with all due respect, is of a little interest compared to written agreements”:
      again, you are simply ignorant. That quotation was from the Churchill White Paper of 1922, not a personal opinion of Churchill. Go back to school.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Are you kidding me? You write that “what I was missing is an opinion of undergraduate student” and then, once that I complain for your sentence, you reply…

        An opinion remains an opinion be it of an undergraduate student or of a doctor of sciences.

        >You should find a good psychologist, a very good one.

        Thank you very much for your concern.

        >you didn’t present one single poignant argumentation, hope you realize it.

        You did not either.

        >no need to resurrect anyone, the Geneva Convention’s travaux préparatoires is a well preserved document that you can easily find.

        Than why is there no references to specific paragraphs of travaux préparatoires which made RC believe that the creators of the 4CG did not mean what they’ve written?

        >So also the Israeli HCJ, beside the rest of the world, recognizes that what you claim is basic propaganda

        A decision based on an interpretation.

        >they were the 9/10th of the total population. Why the huge local majority was suppose to accept to be ruled by a little minority of immigrants from other parts of the world?

        I should’ve written “Because a great many of the couldn’t accept that dirty Jews would become equal to great Muslims.” since the territory was ruled by the Mandatory. All Arabs had to do is accept Jews in Palestine. Some of them did, many others did not.

        >Just the part of the mandate that says that all Palestine was supposed to be Jewish: btw, something never ever happened in the history

        “Article 2
        The Mandatory shall be responsible for … the establishment of the Jewish national home … and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB

        All of Palestine was supposed to be a Jewish national home and a state of all its citizens.

        >That quotation was from the Churchill White Paper of 1922, not a personal opinion of Churchill. Go back to school.

        My bad. Well, it does not make the quotation much more relevant – mandate for Palestine shall have priority over it in any case.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          Trespasser@
          “An opinion remains an opinion be it of an undergraduate student or of a doctor of sciences”:
          good, I am glad that finally you realize that your previous post (“What I was missing is an opinion of undergraduate student”) was silly.
          .
          “Than why is there no references to specific paragraphs of travaux préparatoires which made RC believe that the creators of the 4CG did not mean what they’ve written?”
          Do you mean that you cannot search it online and that I have to send it to you?
          .
          “A decision based on an interpretation”:
          As all the things that you mentioned. The only difference is that in your case only you and the settlers (and their symphatizers) share that opinions
          .
          “I should’ve written “Because a great many of the couldn’t accept that dirty Jews would become equal to great Muslims.” : brilliant as usual
          .
          “Article 2
          The Mandatory shall be responsible for … the establishment of the Jewish national home ….. and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
          http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB“:
          WHERE IS WRITTEN IN THIS PASSAGE THAT ALL PALESTINE WAS SUPPOSED TO BECOME JEWISH? As the White Paper clarified, this sentence implies mean that there was the will to create a jewish national home IN Palestine. Funny that you always complain about interpretations and then you come up with this irrelevant sentence as a prove of something that you simply would wish.
          .
          “All of Palestine was supposed to be a Jewish national home and a state of all its citizens.”:
          Again, there is not ONE single official document in which you will find such sentence (“All of Palestine”). I challenge you to find 1.
          .
          “My bad. Well, it does not make the quotation much more relevant – mandate for Palestine shall have priority over it in any case”:
          sure:-) The mandate of Palestine that you invented. The White Paper of 1922 simply disprove you interpretation: Not more, not less.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Meron,

            >Do you mean that you cannot search it online and that I have to send it to you?

            You more than welcome to surpass my mastery of search.

            A clarification: References to SPECIFIC ARTICLES are required

            >As all the things that you mentioned.

            Correct.

            >“I should’ve written “Because a great many of the couldn’t accept that dirty Jews would become equal to great Muslims.” : brilliant as usual

            Sad but true.

            “Article 2
            The Mandatory shall be responsible for … the establishment of the Jewish national home ….. and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB“:
            WHERE IS WRITTEN IN THIS PASSAGE THAT ALL PALESTINE WAS SUPPOSED TO BECOME JEWISH?

            This passage clearly states that Jewish home should be established in Palestine, not part of it.

            >As the White Paper clarified, this sentence implies mean that there was the will to create a jewish national home IN Palestine.

            The WP clarifies Balfur declaration. It is a bit different document.

            >Again, there is not ONE single official document in which you will find such sentence (“All of Palestine”). I challenge you to find 1.

            “The Palestine Mandate

            ART. 2.

            The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the *country* under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home…”

            http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

            Since it is never mentioned that Jewish national home should be established “in a part of Palestine” and Palestine is everywhere referred as a Jewish national home…

            >The mandate of Palestine that you invented.

            Huh?

            >The White Paper of 1922 simply disprove you interpretation: Not more, not less.

            Again: The Churchill White Paper is related to another document, was released BEFORE Mandate and can not clarify the Mandate. Even theoretically.

            2 November 1917 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

            3 June 1922 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper

            24 July 1922 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_%28legal_instrument%29

            Reply to Comment
    39. meron

      “I don’t know exactly which bits of the land will end up being theirs”: so in the meantime you support the creation of new settlements and the exploitation of the local natural resources? Very wise!
      International law (hague 1907) and a simple moral attitude are against what you claim.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “so in the meantime you support the creation of new settlements”

        I thought we are arguing about what is legal or not legal. Not whether I support or oppose settlements.

        For the record. I support the right of Jews to return to places from which the Arabs ethnically cleansed Jews. The Arabs would have done no less (and probably done worse) if the situation would be reversed.

        I also support settlements in places where security considerations warrant it.

        As for the rest? I don’t necessarily support ALL the settlements. I oppose SOME settlements on the grounds that they are not wise.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          @Meron
          Speaking about “support”, judging by your distinct lack of enthusiasm to answer my question:

          “Why was the Intifada started in response to Ehud Barak’s career limiting peace offer?”

          I assume you supported the Intifada that Arafat planned and initiated in 2000?

          Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “I thought we are arguing about what is legal or not legal”:
          yes, we are arguing about that. And settlements and exploitation of natural resources in the WB are illegal according to many international law, first and formost the Hague Convention of 1907
          .
          “I support the right of Jews to return to places from which the Arabs ethnically cleansed Jews”:
          I do too. Together with the right of return of 800.000 Pals that were ethnically cleansed by Jews. The few hundreds of Jews that were ethnically cleansed by Arabs already got very beautiful houses for free in Musrara, Ein Hod and hundred of former Pal villages, while Pal refugees are still fighting for their basic rights
          .
          “I don’t necessarily support ALL the settlements”:
          So kind of you, you really deserve respect. You are an honest and brave man, kolhakavod

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            “first and formost the Hague Convention of 1907 …”

            You are repeating yorself again. I responded to this already. Obviously you cannot refute my points so you repeat, repeat, repeat …

            Do you think repetition is proof?

            ““I support the right of Jews to return to places from which the Arabs ethnically cleansed Jews”:
            I do too. Together with the right of return of 800.000 Pals that were ethnically cleansed by Jews.”

            Then you are obviously suicidal. The rest of us are not. By the way, you are lying about the fact that the Jews expelled all 800,000 Palestinians. Although they did expell some of them, many of them ran away from a war zone because they knew what their side would do to Jews if they would win and they feared that the same would be done to them by the Jews if they would win. So they ran for their lives as civilians do in all wars.

            “So kind of you, you really deserve respect. You are an honest and brave man, kolhakavod”

            Spare me Meron, I am not looking for your respect, nor your sarcasm. I am very comfortable in my own skin. You on the other hand project pent up hatred. I am sad for you.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Shmuel,
            “Do you think repetition is proof?”
            No just I believe that I continue to mention the Hague Convention and other similar things you will start to address the issue. You are sick of Solipsism. Only what you and your little word of settlers matter. The rest of the universe is wrong and just a distant perception.
            .
            “Then you are obviously suicidal”:
            You are right, so let’s care just about Jews. At the of the day only them are the chosen people.
            .
            “you are lying about the fact that the Jews expelled all 800,000 Palestinians. Although they did expell some of them, many of them ran away from a war zone”:
            right, and when you leave your home for fear you have the right to go back to it. This is what happens in the rest of the world of course, not in your settlerland.
            .
            “Spare me Meron, I am not looking for your respect, nor your sarcasm. I am very comfortable in my own skin. You on the other hand project pent up hatred. I am sad for you”:
            yes you are right. You represent to me, through your words, the prototype of the kind of person that I dislike the most. A little human being that supports the settlers. If you feel very comfortable with your own skin is probably because you grew up in a degenerated environment in which respect for other human beings and education were irrelevant aspects.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >You represent to me, through your words, the prototype of the kind of person that I dislike the most. A little human being that supports the settlers

            Worth noticing that Meron dislikes supporters of settlers more than pedophiles, serial killer and Nazi war criminals.

            What a wonderful person you must be, Meron.

            Wanna take part in our annual sniper conquest? You don’t even have to bring your own rifle.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            *sniper contest

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            “Worth noticing that Meron dislikes supporters of settlers more than pedophiles, serial killer and Nazi war criminals”:
            as a real settler you like to invent staff and to put your words in my mouth. if you are happy like that, good for you.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >You represent to me, through your words, the prototype of the kind of person that I dislike the most. A little human being that supports the settlers

            I ain’t got no need to invent Meron, you said that.

            Tell, are you on prescription drugs or something?

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            SHMUEL: “Then you are obviously suicidal”:
            MERON: “You are right, so let’s care just about Jews. At the of the day only them are the chosen people.”

            I had to come back to the above grotesque response of Meron.

            Yes Meron. Arabs seem to care only about Arab people. And Not at all for the Jewish people. So yes, Jews should care first and foremost for the Jewish people before they care about Arab people.

            For your information, for the last 100 years, the Arabs have been doing their darnest to destroy the only Jewish state in the world. So the situation is kill or be killed. Every other people would behave no better than Israel and many would react even more drastically if their very survival would be at stake.

            Nothing to do with chosen people or chosen-ness so get over your BS.

            Reply to Comment
    40. meron

      Trespasser,
      “An opinion remains an opinion be it of an undergraduate student or of a doctor of sciences”:
      good, I am glad that finally you realize that your previous post (“What I was missing is an opinion of undergraduate student”) was silly.
      .
      “Than why is there no references to specific paragraphs of travaux préparatoires which made RC believe that the creators of the 4CG did not mean what they’ve written?”
      Do you mean that you cannot search it online and that I have to send it to you?
      .
      “A decision based on an interpretation”:
      As all the things that you mentioned. The only difference is that in your case only you and the settlers (and their symphatizers) share that opinions
      .
      “I should’ve written “Because a great many of the couldn’t accept that dirty Jews would become equal to great Muslims.” : brilliant as usual
      .
      “Article 2
      The Mandatory shall be responsible for … the establishment of the Jewish national home ….. and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB“:
      WHERE IS WRITTEN IN THIS PASSAGE THAT ALL PALESTINE WAS SUPPOSED TO BECOME JEWISH? As the White Paper clarified, this sentence implies mean that there was the will to create a jewish national home IN Palestine. Funny that you always complain about interpretations and then you come up with this irrelevant sentence as a prove of something that you simply would wish.
      .
      “All of Palestine was supposed to be a Jewish national home and a state of all its citizens.”:
      Again, there is not ONE single official document in which you will find such sentence (“All of Palestine”). I challenge you to find 1.
      .
      “My bad. Well, it does not make the quotation much more relevant – mandate for Palestine shall have priority over it in any case”:
      sure:-) The mandate of Palestine that you invented. The White Paper of 1922 simply disprove you interpretation: Not more, not less.

      Reply to Comment
    41. meron

      “I assume you supported the Intifada that Arafat planned and initiated in 2000?”
      You assume wrong. The Sharon Intifada was a big mistake made by the Pals. The fact that they were oppressed and humiliated, plus the fact that Israel was building during and after Oslo a huge amount of settlements, pushed many of them to use violence. Afterward they realized that even if your occupier behaves in a evil way, non violence resistance in the only way.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        @Meron
        “The Sharon Intifada was a big mistake made by the Pals.”

        Oh dear. Now you are proving how misinformed you are. Suha Arafat recently admitted that her husband planned the Intifada.

        http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=297688

        ““Immediately after the failure of the Camp David [negotiations], I met him in Paris upon his return.… Camp David had failed, and he said to me: ‘You should remain in Paris.’ I asked him why, and he said: ‘Because I am going to start an Intifada. They want me to betray the Palestinian cause. They want me to give up on our principles, and I will not do so,’” the research institute translated Suha as saying”

        A pre-meditated mistake, huh? And so was their rejection of UN resolution 181. And so were all their terrorist attacks, yes?

        And you think that their mistakes don’t deserve consequences? Well the rest of us don’t.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          @Meron
          Like the Palestinians, you listed all sorts of excuses why peace could not be reached. Here are two of your excuses:

          - Israel offered us only a Bantuhstan.

          - There was no time to conclude a peace deal.

          Those are just excuses which you and they made up regarding the 2000, 2001 and 2008.

          The fact is that the peace offers were not accepted because the Palestinians insisted on the right of return too. Bill Clinton said as much and so did Dennis Ross the chief American negotiator. No use denying it. read the reference link that I posted about it earlier.

          Israel could not and never will accept the right of return of millions of Palestinians or even 800,000 of them. Because it would be a formula for Israel’s destruction. We don’t ever want to be a minority again especially not in our own country because we know how we were treated by the Arabs too when we were minorities.

          So, if the Palestinians don’t want to accept that reality, then they will just have to live with the consequences.

          On the other hand, if they give up their right of return demand, then they will get their own state, they will no longer be occupied and the settlements issue will be resolved once and for all. But it seems that such a solution is not what the Palestinians want.

          So there it is Meron, take it up with them. Maybe they will listen to you. Mind you, I am not holding my breath :)

          Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Among the main concerns with Barak’s offer were Barak’s demand to annex large settlement blocs (9% of the West Bank) with no Israeli land given to a proposed Palestinian state in return, the lack of contiguity that the settlement blocs cause for a Palestinian state, lack of trust in the commitment and/or possibility of the Israeli government to evacuate the thousands of non-bloc Israeli settlers in the 15-year timeline, limited sovereignty for Palestinians in Jerusalem (the historically important Arab neighborhoods such as SHEIKH JARRAH, SILWAN,and AT-TUR..ect… would remain under Israeli sovereignty, while Palestinians would only have sovereignty over the outer Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem), the lack of Palestinian sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem (Palestinians would only receive “administrative control” over their holy sites, and the Old City’s Muslim and Christian Quarters, however Israel was to receive complete sovereignty over Jewish holy sites, and the Old City’s Jewish and Armenian Quarters).
            …….
            In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David”

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            Is that what Shlomo Ben Ami said? But you don’t quote what else he said. I wonder why?

            “…international law was the last — or the least of Arafat’s concern. He didn’t give a damn about international law. It was not whether or not the agreement was based on international law or not that concerned Arafat. In my view, this is my interpretation of a man I met many, many times. I might be wrong, obviously, but this is my firsthand interpretation of this man. He was morally, psychologically, physically incapable of accepting the moral legitimacy of a Jewish state, regardless of its borders or whatever. Arafat was incapable of closing or locking the door of his endless conflict between us and the Palestinians. And this is the bottom line. ”

            Is it because you did not know? Or is it because you are dishonest?

            Reply to Comment
        • meron

          The Sharon Intifada was a big mistake made by the Pals. The fact that they were oppressed and humiliated, plus the fact that Israel was building during and after Oslo a huge amount of settlements, pushed many of them to use violence. Afterward they realized that even if your occupier behaves in a evil way, non violence resistance in the only way.

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            “The Sharon Intifada was a big mistake made by the Pals.”

            This says it all. You are in denial. Unlike you I won’t repeat facts which you choose to deny.

            I will be kind to you. I will describe you as an idealistic fool who lives in a make believe world.

            The rest of us live in the real world and we know that mistakes have consequences. The Palestinians broke many eggs. After they broke them, they thoroughly scrambled them. But now they want Israel to unscramble their eggs, make them into whole eggs again and return them. Can’t be done, Meron.

            Good bye.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            “This says it all”:
            No, this says just a little slice of the matter, the little slice that you decided to consider. You do the same with international law and religion.
            .
            “I will be kind to you. I will describe you as an idealistic fool who lives in a make believe world”:
            I cannot be nice with you. You are a fascist prosettlers with a limited knowledge and a solipsistic syndrom. At the end of the day, as I already told you, it’s not a matter of what you or me think. It’s a matter of what the entire international community and all international organizations evaluate the topics about which we discussed about.
            .
            “The Palestinians broke many eggs”:
            The Intifadah, as most of the other “eggs”, were just consequences and not the starting points. Your limited and selective mind does not allow you to consider the broader picture.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            You are a barrell of laughs. You prove the old saying:

            “Don’t argue with an idiot because he will pull you down to his level then beat you on experience”

            You win. What does that make you?

            Good Bye again.

            :)

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            I am sorry if now you felt hurted. I simply wrote what I think. You are a little man with a limited and selective knowledge. People like you cannot be fulfilled human being, thankfully.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            “I simply wrote what I think”

            Think? Don’t exaggerate, Meron.

            Maybe I won’t just say good by yet seeing that you always have something else to add even though I already told you that you win.

            :)

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            “Think? Don’t exaggerate, Meron.”:
            Your humor and capacity to make fun of other people is astonishing. Instead of supporting the settlers you should try a career in a circus
            .
            “I won’t just say good by yet seeing that you always have something else to add even though I already told you that you win.”:
            you are an immoral looser and you aware of it. I have always something to add because fascists pro-settlers like you have always to remember that are despised by the 99.9% of human beings in this world.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            “I have always something to add because fascists pro-settlers like you have always to remember that are despised by the 99.9% of human beings in this world.”

            If your kind represents 99.9% of human beings. Then humanity should be afraid. Very afraid.

            But I am not that pessimistic.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            I know that you prefer the remaining 0,1% that instead support the settlers and their ideological and selective use of religion and security. In this life or in the next one you will pay a price for being so immoral and self-centered. You can bet about it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Ok Meron, since you sucked me into this insult-fest, let me at least try and clear up a very pertinent issue that arises out of your ideology.

            How do you propose to solve the settlements issue? There are about 500,000 of them, give or take.

            Would you kick them all out of their homes? If so, where would you put them? Would you give them compensation? Or would you just leave them to their own devices? Or would you just simply kill them all?

            I just wrote down what I expect to hear from you about it on a piece of paper. It will be interesting to see if I turn out to be right.

            :)

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            I take the words of Nazmi Jubeh in order to answer to your question. Always remember that settlers must always be considered secondary in relation to the indigenous population:

            “I think that slogans are not useful and do not explain the complexity of things. Any Jew who wants to live in our community, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so. It’s quite a different story, however, to request that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law can ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified. In other words, those who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were already here, and accounted for the vast majority of the local population. This is why there are now over one million Palestinians in Israel, many of whom are known as ‘internally displaced persons’. In constrast to this, settlers arrived in the Palestinian territories through violence and incentives received in recent years from Israeli governments. Equating the former to the latter is not only simplistic, but also morally reprehensible.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            And I take the words of the PLO ambassador to the US who said:

            “WASHINGTON — The Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Jews.”

            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-13/palestinian-israeli-jews-future-state-israel-PLO/50394882/1

            Now back to my original question. What do you propose to do with 500,000 settlers?

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            My answer: “I think that slogans are not useful and do not explain the complexity of things. Any Jew who wants to live in our community, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so. It’s quite a different story, however, to request that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law can ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified. In other words, those who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were already here, and accounted for the vast majority of the local population. This is why there are now over one million Palestinians in Israel, many of whom are known as ‘internally displaced persons’. In constrast to this, settlers arrived in the Palestinian territories through violence and incentives received in recent years from Israeli governments. Equating the former to the latter is not only simplistic, but also morally reprehensible.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron

            @Meron
            And I take the words of the PLO ambassador to the US who said:

            “WASHINGTON — The Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Jews.”

            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-13/palestinian-israeli-jews-future-state-israel-PLO/50394882/1

            Now back to my original question. What do you propose to do with 500,000 settlers?

            Remember that piece of paper that I was talking about? That’s what I wrote down on it:

            “Meron will not answer my question. He will evade, evade and evade more.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Person who writes stuff like “when you leave your home for fear you have the right to go back to it. This is what happens in the rest of the world” thinks probably as much as a parrots.

            Enough to get food, mate, and repeat whatever heard, but not enough to actually realize the meaning of said.

            Meron, there is no international law which claims that ALL refugees must be returned to their original homes at all costs. Sure enough there was no such law in 1948.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Right_of_return

            Yeah, by the way, it’s not 99.9% vs. 0.1%.

            Ever heard of Pareto principle?

            Oh, of course you did not.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

            111

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            You look so funny with your selective use of international law. If somebody writes you that to kill another human being is not acceptable you would answer that not international law prevents it.
            .
            The Absentees’ Property Law was the main legal instrument used by Israel to take possession of the land belonging to the internal and external Palestinian refugees.
            It was a disgusting law that only a sick mind like yours can consider acceptable
            http://www.adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/pr.php?file=09_06_22
            .
            Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. -Article 13(2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948).[4][54]
            .
            No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. -Article 12, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (23 March 1976).[

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            You are the one who is selective. You don’t know anything about the very laws that you so pompously try to peddle at a drop of a hat. Here, read this and educate yourself:

            “Moreover, according to Stig Jagerskiold, the right of return or the right to enter one’s country in the 1966 International Covenant

            “is intended to apply to individuals asserting an individual right. There was no intention here to address the claims of masses of people who have been displaced as a by-product of war or by political transfers of territory or population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of the Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries.11″

            http://jcpa.org/jl/vp485.htm

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Great quotation:-)
            As for me, I quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. art. 13,2:
            “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”.
            As for the comparison with Jews in the Arab countries: PALS are not responsible in any way ot that; moreover Jews were quite easily absorbed simply because they stole Palestinian house in ein houd, musrara and hundreds of other pal cities and disctrics.
            .
            the difference between the indian and pakistani refugees and the palestinian arab refugees is that the former chose to leave of their own free will and without any expulsion or pressure by eithe rgovernment, and they do not wish to return; but in the case of the Palestine Arabs, they were expelled and are not permitted to return, despite their desire to do so

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            @Meron
            “the difference between the indian and pakistani refugees and the palestinian arab refugees is that the former chose to leave of their own free will and without any expulsion or pressure by eithe rgovernment”

            You are lying, Meron. Both populations fled for the same set of reasons.

            And the Jews who fled from Arab countries because of incitement against Jews by Palestinians and their supporters, require compensation too. If they don’t get compensation then neither will the Palestinians.

            Oh and despite of what the Arabs managed to get the UN to recognise on their behalf, through power politics and skullduggery, only the original refugees are refugees. Not their descendants. Thats the law that applies to all other refugees. Palestinians are not special.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            BTW, I also refer to the “individual right” of any Palestinian expelled in 1947 and 1967.

            Reply to Comment
    42. The Trespasser

      >Afterward they realized that even if your occupier behaves in a evil way, non violence resistance in the only way.

      One of major flaws in modern democracy is that people with very little understanding of real-life events unfolding around them or elsewhere are allowed to have a voice.

      Ancient Greek model was much more efficient.

      As a matter of fact what we are calling a “democracy” is “ohlocracy” – the power of crowd.

      Reply to Comment
      • meron

        impressive trespasser, you are really brilliant. we know that you support oppression and autocracy. you don’t have further elaborate on these aspects.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          Dude, you are so full of it.

          Reply to Comment
    43. meron

      Tell dude to you sister.
      The right to self-determination holds that the people of a defined territorial unit have the right “freely to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provision of the UN Charter.”36 Recognised as a
      35 Peremptory norms of international law are also known as norms of jus cogens.
      36 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res 2625 (XXV) (24 October 1970) UN Doc A/RES/2625(XXV); see also, Common Article 1 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

      The right to self-determination includes the customary international law principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, including land and water.38 This principle entitles a people to dispose freely of their natural wealth and resources, in accordance with their interests of national development and well-being.

      Article 41 of the International Law Commission Draft Articles on State Responsibility (hereinafter the ILC Draft Articles), which reflects customary international law, states that in case of breaches of peremptory norms of international law all States are under an obligation not to recognise the situation resulting from the illegal conduct as lawful, not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the illegal situation and to actively cooperate in order to bring it to an end

      http://www.alhaq.org/publications/Feasting-on-the-occupation.pdf

      Reply to Comment
    44. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel