+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Abiding by international law — when it's convenient

Israeli institutions seek to obtain the benefits of the international legal order while refusing to accept the corresponding burdens and obligations.

By Gerard Horton

For some time now the Israeli army’s Military Courts’ Unit has distributed a five-page briefing paper to foreign delegations visiting military courts in the West Bank. The briefing paper is intended to persuade the reader that the military courts — which have been used to prosecute approximately 755,000 Palestinian men, women and children since 1967 — were established, and are currently operating, in accordance with international law. The document commences with the following statement:

The Military Courts in Judea and Samaria (hereinafter: ‘The Military Courts’) were established in accordance with international law, and have jurisdiction to hear ordinary criminal cases and cases involving security offenses.

This statement is significant because the only provision of international law that authorizes the prosecution of civilians in military courts is the Fourth Geneva Convention (the Convention). Under Article 64 of the Convention the penal laws of the occupied territory should remain in force, but may be temporarily suspended and replaced with military law in cases of security or in order to facilitate the application of the Convention.

In circumstances where military law has been imposed, Article 66 of the Convention provides that persons accused of violating the temporary measures can be prosecuted in “properly constituted, non-political military courts.” These are the legal provisions the Military Courts Unit is referring to when it asserts that Israeli military courts “were established in accordance with international law.”

However, in circumstances that can only serve to undermine the rule of law, the political, military and judicial authorities in Israel refuse to apply the same Convention, for example, in relation to settlement construction or the transfer of Palestinian detainees to prisons inside Israel.

Article 49 of the Convention provides that Israel is not permitted to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, thus making all settlement activity in East Jerusalem and the West Bank illegal – a conclusion confirmed by the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice.

Article 76 of the Convention prohibits the transfer and detention of Palestinian detainees outside occupied territory – a legal conclusion confirmed by the U.K.’s Foreign Office and senior government ministers. Be that as it may, approximately 90 percent of Palestinian prisoners continue to be transferred and detained inside Israel.

This gives rise to the untenable situation whereby Israeli institutions seek to obtain the benefits of the international legal order while refusing to accept the corresponding burdens and obligations. It may be that this inconsistency is of little concern in the region today, but no one should later express surprise if one day Israel finds that it has stumbled into pariah status.

Gerard Horton is a lawyer and co-founder of Military Court Watch. Gerard has worked on the issue of children prosecuted in the Israeli military courts for the past seven years and is the author of a number of leading reports on the subject.

Related:
The consequences of a culture of lies
Conviction rate for Palestinians in Israel’s military courts: 99.74%
Testimonies: Eyes on Israeli military courts

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Pedro X

      “the political, military and judicial authorities in Israel refuse to apply the same Convention, for example, in relation to settlement construction or the transfer of Palestinian detainees to prisons inside Israel.”

      The writer might have mentioned that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Israel’s presence in the disputed territories. Israel can build housing for its citizens on land it considers its own. It can transfer criminals from one part of the territory to another even over the armistice lines which the 1949 Armistice agreement did not make a border.

      Until the status of all of the land in the territories is settled by negotiation or annexation, the Geneva conventions will not apply to such matters.

      Reply to Comment
        • Israel lost the British elite after Gaza onslaught, UK ambassador says Philip Weiss on November 22, 2014 – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/#sthash.ernrK88Z.dpuf

          The JC.com, a British Jewish publication, reports the following statements from an appearance by Matthew Gould, Britain’s ambassador to Israel: [N]o ambassador could have softened the impact of pictures of dead Palestinian children in Gaza which appeared daily on the news during the summer, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the conflict, [Gould] argued. “There is no amount of hasbarah or public diplomacy that is going to convince the vast majority of the British public that settlement announcements are a good thing,” [Gould] declared. “There is no amount of hasbarah… which is going to convince the British public that Israel is the underdog in this conflict.” Mr Gould expressed fears that Israel was “slowly losing, bit by bit, the elite centre ground of British public opinion”. The recent parliamentary vote in support of British recognition of a Palestinian state, while it had made no difference to British government policy, reflected “a level of impatience and frustration with what’s happening, with Israeli settlement building and continuing waves of conflict”. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/british-onslaught-ambassador#sthash.SNO9Se35.dpuf

          Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Thanks, it will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out. If this comment board is any indicator, there is no rational conversation to be had. You can’t embarrass an Israeli:

          ——-
          …At the same time, Mr. Avineri said he was alarmed by how some Israeli hard-liners disregard the shift in tone in Europe.

          “There are people in the Israeli government for the first time who are messianic fanatics,” he said. “They don’t care what the world thinks, either because they believe God is on their side, so who cares what Brussels thinks, or because they want Armageddon, after which all will be fine.”

          …Daniel Levy, a Middle East expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the era of a “cost-free occupation” of Palestinian lands, as defined by the 1967 borders, was coming to an end. European officials are threatening sanctions for what Israel does outside those borders, including settlement expansion…. Some suggest that European actions might include visa restrictions for Israeli leaders who reject a two-state solution, or even economic sanctions against companies doing business on occupied land.

          Avi Primor, head of European studies at Tel Aviv University and a former Israeli ambassador to Germany and the European Union, acknowledged “the loss of European public opinion.”

          Still, many Israelis do not seem to care, Mr. Primor said — so “it does not change anything for the government,” which dismisses most criticism as anti-Semitic, and will not affect elections.
          ——-

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “…as defined by the 1967 borders”

            Stop right there. Those were never borders. Israel never had recognized borders. The 1967 boundaries were armistice lines which came into effect in 1949. Go look it up.

            Moreover, at the insistence of the Arabs, the text of the armistice line agreements includes a clause which says that those lines are not to be considered as borders. Both the Arabs and Israelis were signatories of that agreement which include that clause. Again, go look it up …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Those were never borders.”

            You are making a distinction without a difference. A belligerent occupation is something that applies to TERRITORY, not to BORDERS.

            The TERRITORY in “Judea and Samaria” that lies beyond the Green Line is not Israeli territory (even Israel accepts that this is true) and so the seizure of that territory by force of arms = “belligerent occupation”.

            The status of that Green Line (border, boundary, Armistice Line, “Auschwitz Line”, etc.) is utterly irrelevant to that equation.

            The TERRITORY was not and is not “Israeli territory”, and so this is a “belligerent occupation”.

            Gustav: “Israel never had recognized borders.”

            Israel recognized the Partition Plan lines as its borders in 1948, Gustav. It merely changed its mind as it continued to swallow up the surrounding territory.

            Gustav: “The 1967 boundaries were armistice lines which came into effect in 1949.”

            Indeed true, because the Arab countries were not willing to recognize that any of the territory seized by the Haganah 1947-49 became “Israeli territory” merely because Israel was in control of that territory.

            And quite right too, but that did not change in any way the status of the territory that lay to the EAST of that line, which was – and still is – “Not Israel’s Territory”.

            Gustav: “Go look it up.:

            Oh, I have. I just wish you would do the same…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Those were never borders.”

            BUBBLE-BOY:”You are making a distinction without a difference.”

            No. I just corrected the lie which is constantly being perpetrated by people such as Brian, that the 1967 boundaries were borders. I’ll say it again: the 1967 boundaries were just the 1949 armistice lines. And at the specific request of the Arabs who signed the armistice agreement, they included a clause which says that those boundaries were NOT borders. Do you agree or disagree, Bubble-Boy?

            “A belligerent occupation is something that applies to TERRITORY, not to BORDERS.”

            Sigh, we had this debate before. A civil war broke out in 1949 when the Jews of Palestine decided to declare their own independent state in part of Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine however claimed ALL of Palestine for themselves. The ensuing civil war in which neighboring Arab states also got involved, ended with the 1949 armistice agreement and NO declared borders.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”The TERRITORY in “Judea and Samaria” that lies beyond the Green Line is not Israeli territory (even Israel accepts that this is true)”

            Israel always accepted the idea of a negotiated solution. That however never meant that it ceded ALL the territories beyond the 1949 armistice lines as exclusively Arab lands.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”and so the seizure of that territory by force of arms = “belligerent occupation”.”

            Since the WB Palestinian Arabs as a people are not Israeli citizens, yes they are under occupation. But the land/territory certainly is NOT since in a civil war, both groups of people are allowed to claim any part of the land which is under dispute.

            Wanna dispute what I say? Then you might think about what is happening in the civil war in Syria. Noone would ever suggest that in the Syrian civil war any of the warring parties are guilty of belligerent occupation of any territory because all Syrians are allowed to live anywhere within Syria without being accused of being “Occupiers”. The same thing is true about both the Jews and Arabs of Palestine.

            “The status of that Green Line (border, boundary, Armistice Line, “Auschwitz Line”, etc.) is utterly irrelevant to that equation.”

            They are not irrelevant if someone attempts to perpetrate the LIE that the 1967 boundaries are borders. When they do, and I come across such dishonesty, I will always take the trouble to refute their dishonesty.

            “The TERRITORY was not and is not “Israeli territory”, and so this is a “belligerent occupation”.”

            Neither was it or is “Arab territory”. Legally speaking, it is still part of the old British Mandate which was known as Palestine. But the Palestinians were not just Arabs, they were Jews too and the fact that in order to confuse unsuspecting people, the Arabs now try to make everyone believe that only Arabs were Palstinians and they want to call their new state Palestine, does not give them exclusive right to those territories till such time as formal borders will be negotiated and recognized. Till then, legally speaking, EVERYTHING is disputed.

            GUSTAV: “Israel never had recognized borders.”

            BUBBLE-BOY:”Israel recognized the Partition Plan lines as its borders in 1948, Gustav. It merely changed its mind as it continued to swallow up the surrounding territory.”

            No, you are wrong about that too. The Yishuv accepted UN resolution 181 in principle, subject to Arabs acceptance of the resolution. But since the Arabs did NOT accept the partitioning of Palestine, at the insistence of Ben Gurion, the leader of the Yishuv, the Jews of Palestine did not declare any borders either. And yes, their rationale was that if the Arabs were bloody minded and played a zero sum game, the Jews would be bloody minded too and go for broke.

            GUSTAV: “The 1967 boundaries were armistice lines which came into effect in 1949.”

            BUBBLE-BOY:”Indeed true, because the Arab countries were not willing to recognize that any of the territory seized by the Haganah 1947-49 became “Israeli territory” merely because Israel was in control of that territory.”

            I am glad that you admit what I say about the fact that there are no such a thing as the 1967 “borders” but Actually, no 1947-49 did not become “Israeli territory”. No territories are currently “Israeli Territory” but rather, such lands are under Israeli control. But those lands are certainly not within final borders till a deal will be negotiated and permanent recognized borders will be established. That’s why two Israeli Prime Ministers were willing to be pragmatic and cede territories within the Green Line (the 1947-49 boundaries) as part of a land swap deal for the so called “settlements” which we want to keep in Judea and Samaria.

            GUSTAV: “Go look it up.:

            BUBBLE-BOY:”Oh, I have. I just wish you would do the same…”

            No you have not. You just looked up a lot of propaganda and you made it your own without using your critical faculties.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            “Wanna dispute what I say? Then you might think about what is happening in the civil war in Syria. Noone would ever suggest that in the Syrian civil war any of the warring parties are guilty of belligerent occupation of any territory because all Syrians are allowed to live anywhere within Syria without being accused of being “Occupiers”. The same thing is true about both the Jews and Arabs of Palestine. “

            You are wrong here as well, as you well know. What is and isn’t occupied territory, and what is and isn’t a nation, or a people with actual right to the land they inhabit, is usually decided by international consensus.

            And the international consensus in the case of Israel is very, very clear. Every recognized country on earth, all the ca. 200 of them, consider the situation in Israel/Palestine an illegal occupation. Except Israel of course. But all the other countries, including the USA.

            One more thing:
            Just because someone defines something as “not a border”, but a “basket of apples”, does not make it a basket of apples. Come on Gustav. Don’t be that stupid.

            The pre-1967 borders might not have been borders by Israels definition. They were however borders by EVERYONE ELSE’S.

            “But those lands are certainly not within final borders till a deal will be negotiated and permanent recognized borders will be established. “

            There are “permanent recognized borders”. Everybody recognizes them. Except for Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            FELIX:”Just because someone defines something as “not a border”, but a “basket of apples”, does not make it a basket of apples. Come on Gustav. Don’t be that stupid.

            The pre-1967 borders might not have been borders by Israels definition. They were however borders by EVERYONE ELSE’S.”

            No Felix, YOU are the one who is wrong. Read my previous post. Which bit of the following didn’t you understand?!

            GUSTAV:”Moreover, at the insistence of the Arabs, the text of the armistice line agreements includes a clause which says that those lines are not to be considered as borders. Both the Arabs and Israelis were signatories of that agreement which include that clause. Again, go look it up …”

            You know what a signed armistice agreement is Felix? I’ll tell you: it is a legal document and you just want to ignore it? A bit like how your grandparents used to ignore any human norms when it came to Jews? Well I have news for you, these are not the Middle Ages and we know how to regard legal armistice agreements.

            As for international consensus. That is known as politics. And you do know what drives politics? You do know that politics and self interest go hand in hand. For starters, there are nearly 60 Islamic nations which act as a rubber stamp for the Arabs about anything to do with Israel. As for the rest, they too are driven by self interest driven by oil, commerce and whatever else. Do you expect us to heed the politics of self interest and ignore our own self interest? Of course you do. But we won’t and you can do nothing about it.

            One more thing about consensus. A mere 200 years or so ago there was overwhelming international consensus that the enslavement of human beings is legal. They justified their outrageous consensus on racial grounds and the color of the skin of the wretched slaves. I guess, someone like you would have proudly pointed at international consensus to justify slavery and you would have called me stupid for arguing against it. Just think about that and stew on it, Felix dear …

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            “Stop right there. Those were never borders. Israel never had recognized borders. The 1967 boundaries were armistice lines which came into effect in 1949. Go look it up.”

            You are wrong, of course. Many countries in the world had recognized Israel’s borders prior to 1967.

            And since 2002 even the Arab states (ALL OF THEM) recognize the pre-1967 borders of Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “You are wrong, of course. Many countries in the world had recognized Israel’s borders prior to 1967.

            And since 2002 even the Arab states (ALL OF THEM) recognize the pre-1967 borders of Israel.”

            More drivel from you Felix.

            Many countries recognized Israel. Yes. But it’s borders they did not and could not possibly recognize because neither of the sides agreed on ANY borders.

            Till relatively recently in historical terms, the Arabs did not recognize Israel, period. Let alone any borders for it. And Israel therefore did not see it worthwhile to define it’s own borders.

            So, tell me Felix, if the two warring sides were not willing to define borders what exactly did other nations recognize?

            Oh and you might also tell me why was it necessary to come up with the so called “Roadmap for peace” document? I’ll tell you why. Because it included a process to determine the future borders so of Israel-Palestine through negotiations. Go look it up …

            Reply to Comment
        • Thanks for your link and here’s one with a bit of the article attached –

          Israel lost the British elite after Gaza onslaught, UK ambassador says Middle East Philip Weiss on November 22, 2014

          Interesting to read that an official, much less the British ambassador to Israel, using the term hasbarah.

          Reply to Comment
      • Josh

        Thre are no “disputed territories”, Thre is Israel and there is Palestine, which is occupied by evil forces.
        The only thing disputed is whether hasbara clowns like you have souls and brains.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “…which is occupied by evil forces.”

          Cartoon world anyone?

          Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        PX: “The writer might have mentioned that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Israel’s presence in the disputed territories.”

        In which case, of course, the entire Israeli Military Court system in the West Bank is… illegitimate, and 755,000 Palestinians are entitled to compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

        Pedro is a poster child for this article, since he denies the application of the GC when that Convention is inconvenient, but then refuses to accept the consequences of that denial i.e. the ENTIRE apparatus of the state that has been erected in the West Bank since 1967 has… no basis in law.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Pedro is right and you are wrong BUBBLE-BOY.

          The Geneva Conventions are applicable only to wars between two severeign nations, each with recognized borders. They were never written for civil wars.

          Having said that, Israel has voluntarily agreed to abide by aspects of the Geneva Conventions in it’s treatment of the population which came undervit’s control. It does not however mean that such things extend to anything to do with the clauses which relate to “population transfer”.

          Unless of course you would be prepared to accuse say Sunni Syrians of of transgession against the Geneva Conventions if Sunni civilians move into areas in Syria where Sunnis did not live before?

          Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            Pedro is wrong and you are wrong, Gustav. Again. As you well know. Again.

            There is an international consensus that the Geneva convention is indeed applicable to the territories occupied by Israel. And again, as in your previous examples, everyone agrees. Except Israel.

            Even the ICJ. Which is, after all, the final arbiter on such disputes. So it can be summed up that you are objectively wrong. Again.

            http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6

            And since, as I’ve demonstrated, the fourth Geneva Convention is indeed very applicable to the territories occupied by Israel, and since this is common consensus, the clauses referring to “population transfer” are applicable as well. Since they’re part of the 4th GC.

            Again, you’re wrong.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I already answered your absurd claim that individual borders of countries are made by international consensus rather than by legal documents, precedents and the interpretations of RELEVANT laws and negotiations between the relevant parties. And in the case of the Arab Israeli conflict there is nothing more relevant than the signed armistice agreement of 1949 which clearly states that the armistice lines are NOT, I repeat, NOT borders. That was a LEGALLY BINDING document, Felix!

            Moreover, if you think that the UN is a true and impartial arbiter of the laws and that Israel is obliged to accept what it says, then perhaps you could tell us why the Arabs did not abide by the UN decision to partition Palestine in 1947? I’ll tell you why: because the Arabs were not obliged to abide by the UN decision either because, like the nonsensical advisory ruling of the ICJ, UN GA assembly resolution too was non binding. The only binding UN resolutions are Chapter 7 Security Council Resolutions. Get it Felix?

            Oh and don’t forget what I told you in my previous post about slavery. That was an example of what types of laws one gets if laws are made by politicised self interested parties who reach consensus.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The Geneva Conventions are applicable only to wars between two severeign nations, each with recognized borders.”

            Article 2 says that the convention is applicable anywhere where the armies of two HCPs come to blows.

            It is Beyond Ludicrous to claim that this only applies inside the territory of one or other of those two HCPs, precisely because there are endless – absolutely endless – cases where two foreign armies are fighting over a territory that belongs to neither of them.

            June 1967, the armies of Israel and Jordan came to blows inside the West Bank.

            Q1: Was Israel a HCP?
            A1: Yes.

            Q2: Was Jordan a HCP?
            A2: Yes.

            QED, Geneva Convention IV **became** applicable inside the West Bank in June 1967.

            Now, Gustav, go and look at Article 6 and find the circumstances in which the Convention **ceases** to be applicable.

            Answer: It **ceases** to be applicable as soon as the fighting ends, except where there is continued occupation.

            In **there** the Convention continues to apply for as long as that occupation lasts.

            What is it now, 47 years and still counting?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Q1: Was Israel a HCP?
            A1: Yes.

            Q2: Was Jordan a HCP?
            A2: Yes.”

            Thank you BUBBLE-BOY for bringing up Jordan. You do know that unlike the Jews of Palestine (Israel), Jordan was a foreign invader in 1948 who ended up occupying Palestinian lands (the West Bank) for 19 years. Furthermore, in 1967, Jordan again initiated aggression when it attacked West Jerusalem. So the Jews of Palestine (Israel) were actually liberators of Palestinian lands when they defeated the army of the foreign invaders (Jordan) in 1967 and liberated the West Bank (WB).

            And you know what, BUBBLE-BOY? I never heard any other party in history which liberated their own lands described as occupiers. The fact that there are other people in Palestine (the Arabs) who also make claims on the same lands is not relevant. BOTH the Arabs and the Jews of Palestine were Palestinians. That isn’t so hard to grasp is it? That is why a negotiated agreed solution must be reached to divide the land between the two contenders and to decide on permanent borders. Once such an agreement would be reached, any subsequent incursion (and holding) by one party or another to the other’s territory would be justly considered as an occupation. But not before …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You do know that unlike the Jews of Palestine (Israel), Jordan was a foreign invader in 1948 who ended up occupying Palestinian lands (the West Bank) for 19 years.”

            Yeah, I know that.

            I also know that the events of June 1967 merely resulted in one Army of Occupation (the RJA) being replced by another Army of Occupation (the IDF).

            That the IDF is an Army of Occupation in the West Bank is not disputed, Gustav.

            Not by the Israel High Court of Justice.

            Not by the Government of Israel.

            Not even by the IDF itself.

            Only you dispute that, because you are delusional.

            This is a belligerent occupation, and because of the nature by which the IDF *became* the Army of Occupation (i.e. by fighting against and defeating the Royal Jordanian Army) then Geneva Convention IV is, indeed, applicable to this particular belligerent occupation.

            You don’t agree, but that’s because You Are Deluding Yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I also know that the events of June 1967 merely resulted in one Army of Occupation (the RJA) being replced by another Army of Occupation (the IDF).”

            Nope! The Jordanian army were foreign invaders. The Palestinian Jews (Israel = via it’s IDF) liberated Palestinian Territories. Spot the difference between the two?

            “That the IDF is an Army of Occupation in the West Bank is not disputed, Gustav.”

            Sigh … as I said before, the WB Palestinian Arab people are under occupation.

            The WB territory itself is NOT under occupation. Only Palestinians live in the WB, be it Jewish Palestinians who now call themselves Israelis or Arab Palestinians.

            “Not by the Israel High Court of Justice.”

            You are right, like I said, the Israel high Court considers the WB Palestinian Arabs to be under occupation.

            “Not by the Government of Israel.”

            The Government of Israel considers the West Bank to be disputed lands. Go look it up again, silly.

            “Not even by the IDF itself.”

            You are right, like I said, the IDF considers the WB Palestinian Arabs to be under occupation.

            “Only you dispute that, because you are delusional.”

            What have I disputed exactly, BUBBLE-BOY?

            “This is a belligerent occupation, and because of the nature by which the IDF *became* the Army of Occupation (i.e. by fighting against and defeating the Royal Jordanian Army) then Geneva Convention IV is, indeed, applicable to this particular belligerent occupation.”

            Again:

            WB Palestinian Arab People = Occupied.

            WB territory = Disputed lands.

            “You don’t agree, but that’s because You Are Deluding Yourself.”

            I am sorry that you are comprehension challenged and cannot understand what you are being told. Then again, what can one expect from a BUBBLE-BOY who lives in a bubble?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Nope! The Jordanian army were foreign invaders. The Palestinian Jews (Israel = via it’s IDF) liberated Palestinian Territories. Spot the difference between the two?”

            There is no difference.

            The IDF is encamped outside of the sovereign territory of the state of Israel.

            Even the state of Israel does not dispute that fact, which is why it is demanding that territory be Ceded To It in any final status agreement.

            Honestly, Gustav, you live in Cloud Coo-Coo Land.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Nope! The Jordanian army were foreign invaders. The Palestinian Jews (Israel = via it’s IDF) liberated Palestinian Territories. Spot the difference between the two?”

            BUBBLEBOY:”There is no difference.

            The IDF is encamped outside of the sovereign territory of the state of Israel.”

            The sovereign territory of Israel? You mean beyond the 1949 armistice lines? Well of course. In 1967, the Jordanians broke the terms of the armistice agreement by shelling West Jerusalem, so Israel had to get rid of the pests. It is called self defense, Bubbleboy. Have you ever heard of such a concept? No, when it comes to the rights of Israel, I am sure you pretend not to …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Even the state of Israel does not dispute that fact, which is why it is demanding that territory be Ceded To It in any final status agreement.”

            Of course we do. Because the land is disputed and with disputes come wars. We want to end wars, that is why we seek formal agreements to keep the lands which we need. In fact, because we are pragmatic and serious about peace, we even offered land swaps in return.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Honestly …”

            Don’t even try to go there Bubbleboy. The word “Honestly” and “You” are an oxymoron.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The WB territory itself is NOT under occupation.”

            I have to admit that this bit of nonsense slipped past me.

            It is a claim that is so indisputably wrong that it can not be allowed to stand without challenge.

            Here, I’ll let the Israel High Court of Justice throw down that challenge….

            HCJ 2056/04, Para 1: “Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in
            belligerent occupation.”

            HCJ 2056/04, Para 23: “The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel
            holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica).”

            And since “all parties” include:
            a) The Government of Israel
            b) The IDF commander in the West Bank, and, yes, even
            c) The Beit Sourik Village Council
            then I’m going to have to call you out for the ignorant, lonely little dimwit that you are.

            Because, basically, everyone in Israel and the OPT who matters regarding this matter agrees with me that this a territory that is under the belligerent occupation of the IDF.

            The court agrees.
            The government agrees.
            The IDF agrees.
            Even the occupied agree.

            And Gustav, poor ignorant and lonely Gustav, is sitting over there all by his very lonesome.

            Q: Why?
            A: Because n.o.b.o.d.y. agrees with his argument.

            Not. A. Single. Solitary. Soul.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            More repetition by Bubbleboy. Ok I am game …

            Yes Bubbleboy. The Israeli Supreme Court agrees with you.

            Now show me where the Israeli Supreme Court agrees with your ‘sledge hammer’ like interpretation of what that means?

            For instance, do they agree that Israeli Jews are verboten from living in the old Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem because they are deemed to be illegal settlers? Of course not!

            As for me, I still stand by my claim that all the historic land of Palestine is disputed because nobody can point out to me valid borders between the proposed state of Palestine and Israel.

            The partition borders? No, because the Arabs rejected those and consequently Israel did not formally declare those borders as it’s own (not withstanding obscure statements in a couple of letters by some Israeli officials). Moreover, the partition was proposed by the UN GA and therefore it was not a mandatory resolution. It was just a recommendation.

            The 1967 boundaries? No of course not. Even you agreed with me Bubbleboy that those were not borders but armistice lines.

            So if there are no agreed borders, then it follows that at least theoretically everything is disputed. In practice, there are likely to be borders somewhere along the 1967 boundaries but not exactly along those boundaries because there is no possible justification to pretend that those were ever borders. But who knows? Anything might happen if the Palestinian Arabs keep on pushing their luck as they have over the last 100 years …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Having said that, Israel has voluntarily agreed to abide by aspects of the Geneva Conventions”….

            Well worth examining that nonsense in detail, I would suggest.

            Because **if** Geneva Convention IV is not applicable to this territory **then** the author of this article has already won the argument i.e. Israel has **no** legal basis for creating military courts inside this occupied territory.

            What Gustav is claiming is that Israel can get around that by playing a game of “let’s pretend” with itself.

            As in: let’s pretend that we can do this, even while we insist that there is no legal basis for us doing this.

            Gustav, baby, think about it: the AUTHORITY that an occupying power has over an occupied territory DERIVES FROM international humanitarian law, ergo, absent the applicability of that IHL then the authority that IHL grants to a military occupation is also absent.

            I’m serious: think about that.

            Because if Israel insists that IHL doesn’t apply to this territory then there is **no** legal basis for **anything** that Israel does inside this territory.

            It’s “rule” over the West Bank is nothing more – nor less – than of a medieval war lord, precisely because Israel is denying the **only** legal basis for that rule.

            In which case it simply doesn’t matter how much Israel says “let’s pretend benevolent/enlightened” a warlord it is – it is still a medieval warlord acting utterly lawlessly.

            Honestly, Zionist propaganda is breathtaking in its shallowness.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “What Gustav is claiming is that Israel can get around that by playing a game of “let’s pretend” with itself.”

            There is no pretence. As I already said, the WB Palestinian Arab people never have been and are not intended to be Israeli citizens. They are under the control of Israel, therefore, as a people, they are experiencing occupation. As such, Israel undertook to deal with them according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

            But the lands (or the territory) whichever way you describe it, belongs to both groups until such time they will be demarcated specifically as Israeli or Arab lands. Until such time, the lands are not occupied lands and either set of population can legally live anywhere in Palestine without being deemed illegals. Of course, in practice, there are practical constraints about who can live where …

            In practice, Israel prevents WB Palestinian Arabs from living within the Green Line because it does not want those who are it’s enemies to live amongst Palestinian Jews (Israelis). And likewise, WB Palestinian Arabs have the means to prevent Jewish Palestinians from taking over at least some areas through intimidation.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “They are under the control of Israel, therefore, as a people, they are experiencing occupation.”

            Yeah, but what is the LEGAL basis for that “under the control of Israel”?

            If you claim that basis to be “because we seized it” then you are, indeed, admitting that the IDF is a lawless medieval warlord.

            If you claim that basis to be “because int’l humanitarian law says so” then you have a slight problem i.e. you deny the applicability of IHL to *this* belligerent occupation.

            Which, again, leads us straight back to the IDF being a lawless medieval warlord.

            You don’t appear to be grasping the fundamental problem that your argument has, Gustav.

            It is this: the legal “authority” that an occupying power has over an occupied territory DERIVES FROM the Int’l Humanitarian Laws that pertain to belligerent occupations.

            So if those conventions aren’t applicable (and you keep claiming that they aren’t) then the IDF likewise can’t claim that it possesses any of the “authority” that accrues to an occupier via those same laws.

            And in the absence of that legal authority then the occupier is merely… a lawless medieval warlord.

            Someone who’s “control” derives from the pointy end of their guns, and NOTHING MORE.

            You simply don’t get that fundamental point of law, do you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “They are under the control of Israel, therefore, as a people, they are experiencing occupation.”

            BUBBLE-BOY:”Yeah, but what is the LEGAL basis for that “under the control of Israel”?”

            They lost the war which they started against Israel in 1947 and which they continued with continued asymmetrical warfare till 1967 and beyond.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”If you claim that basis to be “because we seized it” then you are, indeed, admitting that the IDF is a lawless medieval warlord.”

            LOL, I admit no such thing nor does it follow from your sentence. But good try, try-hard …

            BUBBLE-BOY:”If you claim that basis to be “because int’l humanitarian law says so” then you have a slight problem i.e. you deny the applicability of IHL to *this* belligerent occupation.”

            I claim that any army which controls an enemy population is obliged to treat that population humanely. Doing so says nothing about the ownership of the land though.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”Which, again, leads us straight back to the IDF being a lawless medieval warlord.”

            Only if you are a mindless idiot who likes to repeat his own mantra.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”You don’t appear to be grasping the fundamental problem that your argument has, Gustav.”

            Keep trying BUBBLE-BOY, you ain’t making progress except according to your own self inflated ego.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”It is this: the legal “authority” that an occupying power has over an occupied territory DERIVES FROM the Int’l Humanitarian Laws that pertain to belligerent occupations.”

            BS. You still have not told me how an indigenous population can be said to occupy it’s own territory? All you are trying to prove with great desperation that if a government, in this instance, Israel agrees to abide by humanitarian laws in it’s treatment of a population under it’s control, then it somehow relinquishes the right to the territories which both sets of populations lay a claim to. But your argument has zero, zip, nada, no logic to it. Kapish?

            “So if those conventions aren’t applicable (and you keep claiming that they aren’t) then the IDF likewise can’t claim that it possesses any of the “authority” that accrues to an occupier via those same laws.”

            How many times do I have to repeat that Israel decided to apply humanitarian laws in it’s treatment of the population which it controls? But that does not constitute admission that it has no right to claim some or all of the land which it controls.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”And in the absence of that legal authority then the occupier is merely… a lawless medieval warlord.”

            There is no absence of legal authority except maybe in Hamastan. Was that what you meant BUBLE-BOY?

            BUBBLE-BOY:”Someone who’s “control” derives from the pointy end of their guns, and NOTHING MORE.”

            Really? Unless of course the pointy end of the gun is owned by Arabs and then everything is Hallal? The fact is that since the Arabs have been making war on us for 100 years, we either point the pointy end of a gun on them or they do it to us and they would bring us to a sticky end. So we are very comfortable in our skin when we point the pointy end of a gun at them. Live with it.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”You simply don’t get that fundamental point of law, do you?”

            Actually I do. But what you try to preach BUBBLE-BOY, ain’t law. It is a formula for our demise and we ain’t buyin’.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Me: “Yeah, but what is the LEGAL basis for that “under the control of Israel”?”

            Gustav: “They lost the war which they started against Israel in 1947 and which they continued with continued asymmetrical warfare till 1967 and beyond.”

            [Gustav has just claimed that the legal basis is “because we seized it”.]

            Me: “If you claim that basis to be “because we seized it” then you are, indeed, admitting that the IDF is a lawless medieval warlord.”

            Gustav: “LOL, I admit no such thing nor does it follow from your sentence.”

            See above: You. Just. Did.

            Gustav: “I claim that any army which controls an enemy population is obliged to treat that population humanely.”

            And that’s a MORAL argument, it is not a LEGAL argument.

            It only becomes a LEGAL argument when you can point to the source of that “obligation”.

            And that source is, indeed, International Humanitarian Law.

            Q: Why?
            A: Because IHL are “the laws of war”.

            Which – one more time, yet again – presents Gustav with a problem of his own making i.e. he rejects the applicability of IHL to *this* occupation.

            Well, sorry, in that case there is not LEGAL source for your claim that there is an “obligation”, there is only a MORAL argument that this is the expected behaviour of military occupiers.

            Or, as this article (correctly) says: Israel is “Abiding by international law — when it’s convenient”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY: “Yeah, but what is the LEGAL basis for that “under the control of Israel”?”

            GUSTAV: “They lost the war which they started against Israel in 1947 and which they continued with continued asymmetrical warfare till 1967 and beyond.”

            BUBBLEBOY “[Gustav has just claimed that the legal basis is “because we seized it”.]”

            This is indicative of the silly games which our bubbleboy tries to play.

            BUBBLEBOY: “If you claim that basis to be “because we seized it” then you are, indeed, admitting that the IDF is a lawless medieval warlord.”

            GUSTAV: “LOL, I admit no such thing nor does it follow from your sentence.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”See above: You. Just. Did.”

            See above, he still tries to play silly mind games.

            GUSTAV: “I claim that any army which controls an enemy population is obliged to treat that population humanely.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”And that’s a MORAL argument, it is not a LEGAL argument.”

            What has our Bubbleboy against moral arguments?

            BUBBLEBOY:”It only becomes a LEGAL argument when you can point to the source of that “obligation”.

            But … But … But …pointing is rude, Bubbleboy. Didn’t your mother tell you that?

            BUBBLEBOY:”And that source is, indeed, International Humanitarian Law.”

            Oh, Nooooo. He is in lecture mode again …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Q: Why?”

            Eeek …I don’t want to know …

            BUBBLEBOY:”A: Because IHL are “the laws of war”.

            Awwww … shucks … He told me anyway. This guy is a regular genius in his own mind …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Which – one more time, yet again – presents …”

            Oh no, he is in “one more time” mode now …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Well, sorry, …”

            And it’s about time too. You should be sorry …LOL.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Or, as this article (correctly) says: Israel is “Abiding by international law — when it’s convenient”

            … like everybody else, right teacher? Ooops I mean Bubbleboy …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Having said that, Israel has voluntarily agreed to abide by aspects of the Geneva Conventions”…

            How tedious.

            If the Genvena Conventions do not apply to this belligerent occupation (and it is important to note that Israel does not dispute that this is a belligerent occupation) then Gustav is faced with a problem i.e. he is unable to find a LEGAL basis for anything that the IDF does inside the West Bank.

            Under the circumstances that he argues then the IDF would be – quite literally – a lawless entity, and that has the inescapable consequence that the IDF’s “rule” over this territory is nothing more – nor less – than that of a medieval warlord.

            Gustav attempts to get around that by asking us all to join Israel in a game of “let’s pretend”.

            As in: let’s pretend that Israel can rule over this territory even though Israel denies the applicability of the very laws that give it the “authority” to rule over this territory.

            Sorry, Gustav, but a lawless warlord is a lawless warlord, and that remains true no matter how many times you ask me to pretend that the IDF’s rule is benevolent or enlightened.

            This is very simple: can you find a LEGAL basis for the IDF’s rule over this territory, or can’t you?

            Gustav: “Having said that, Israel has voluntarily agreed to abide by aspects of the Geneva Conventions”…

            No, that’s not a LEGAL basis, it is merely a plea for us all to play “let’s pretend” with Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You know what, BUBLE-BOY? Since you post two posts which say exactly the same thing, I too will post two identical replies.

            “What Gustav is claiming is that Israel can get around that by playing a game of “let’s pretend” with itself.”

            There is no pretence. As I already said, the WB Palestinian Arab people never have been and are not intended to be Israeli citizens. They are under the control of Israel, therefore, as a people, they are experiencing occupation. As such, Israel undertook to deal with them according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

            But the lands (or the territory) whichever way you describe it, belongs to both groups until such time they will be demarcated specifically as Israeli or Arab lands. Until such time, the lands are not occupied lands and either set of population can legally live anywhere in Palestine without being deemed illegals. Of course, in practice, there are practical constraints about who can live where …

            In practice, Israel prevents WB Palestinian Arabs from living within the Green Line because it does not want those who are it’s enemies to live amongst Palestinian Jews (Israelis). And likewise, WB Palestinian Arabs have the means to prevent Jewish Palestinians from taking over at least some areas through intimidation.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “They are under the control of Israel, therefore, as a people, they are experiencing occupation.”

            Yeah, but what is the LEGAL basis for that “under the control of Israel”?

            If you claim that basis to be “because we seized it” then you are, indeed, admitting that the IDF is a lawless medieval warlord.

            If you claim that basis to be “because int’l humanitarian law says so” then you have a slight problem i.e. you deny the applicability of IHL to *this* belligerent occupation.

            Which, again, leads us straight back to the IDF being a lawless medieval warlord.

            You don’t appear to be grasping the fundamental problem that your argument has, Gustav.

            It is this: the legal “authority” that an occupying power has over an occupied territory DERIVES FROM the Int’l Humanitarian Laws that pertain to belligerent occupations.

            So if those conventions aren’t applicable (and you keep claiming that they aren’t) then the IDF likewise can’t claim that it possesses any of the “authority” that accrues to an occupier via those same laws.

            And in the absence of that legal authority then the occupier is merely… a lawless medieval warlord.

            Someone who’s “control” derives from the pointy end of their guns, and NOTHING MORE.

            You simply don’t get that fundamental point of law, do you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sigh …

            More BUBBLE-BOY style repetition. Ok, I am game … me too then …

            GUSTAV: “They are under the control of Israel, therefore, as a people, they are experiencing occupation.”

            BUBBLE-BOY:”Yeah, but what is the LEGAL basis for that “under the control of Israel”?”

            They lost the war which they started against Israel in 1947 and which they continued with continued asymmetrical warfare till 1967 and beyond.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”If you claim that basis to be “because we seized it” then you are, indeed, admitting that the IDF is a lawless medieval warlord.”

            LOL, I admit no such thing nor does it follow from your sentence. But good try, try-hard …

            BUBBLE-BOY:”If you claim that basis to be “because int’l humanitarian law says so” then you have a slight problem i.e. you deny the applicability of IHL to *this* belligerent occupation.”

            I claim that any army which controls an enemy population is obliged to treat that population humanely. Doing so says nothing about the ownership of the land though.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”Which, again, leads us straight back to the IDF being a lawless medieval warlord.”

            Only if you are a mindless idiot who likes to repeat his own mantra.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”You don’t appear to be grasping the fundamental problem that your argument has, Gustav.”

            Keep trying BUBBLE-BOY, you ain’t making progress except according to your own self inflated ego.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”It is this: the legal “authority” that an occupying power has over an occupied territory DERIVES FROM the Int’l Humanitarian Laws that pertain to belligerent occupations.”

            BS. You still have not told me how an indigenous population can be said to occupy it’s own territory? All you are trying to prove with great desperation that if a government, in this instance, Israel agrees to abide by humanitarian laws in it’s treatment of a population under it’s control, then it somehow relinquishes the right to the territories which both sets of populations lay a claim to. But your argument has zero, zip, nada, no logic to it. Kapish?

            “So if those conventions aren’t applicable (and you keep claiming that they aren’t) then the IDF likewise can’t claim that it possesses any of the “authority” that accrues to an occupier via those same laws.”

            How many times do I have to repeat that Israel decided to apply humanitarian laws in it’s treatment of the population which it controls? But that does not constitute admission that it has no right to claim some or all of the land which it controls.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”And in the absence of that legal authority then the occupier is merely… a lawless medieval warlord.”

            There is no absence of legal authority except maybe in Hamastan. Was that what you meant BUBLE-BOY?

            BUBBLE-BOY:”Someone who’s “control” derives from the pointy end of their guns, and NOTHING MORE.”

            Really? Unless of course the pointy end of the gun is owned by Arabs and then everything is Hallal? The fact is that since the Arabs have been making war on us for 100 years, we either point the pointy end of a gun on them or they do it to us and they would bring us to a sticky end. So we are very comfortable in our skin when we point the pointy end of a gun at them. Live with it.

            BUBBLE-BOY:”You simply don’t get that fundamental point of law, do you?”

            Actually I am. But what you try to preach BUBBLE-BOY, ain’t law. It is a formula for our demise and we ain’t buyin’.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “As I already said, the WB Palestinian Arab people never have been and are not intended to be Israeli citizens.”

            Once more Gustav displays his profound ignorance of UNGAR181, in this case w.r.t. who was “intended to be Israeli citizens”.

            In fact, here is the definition of who were intended to be Israeli citizens: “Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.”

            So every “WB Arab” who ended up in the West Bank because the Haganah had evicted them was, indeed, “intended to be Israeli citizens”.

            After all, it is indisputable that those refugee’s “place of residence” was back inside Israel.

            Why?

            Because it is a fundamental concept of international law that refugee status means that you are “displaced”, it does not mean that you have “relocated”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Once more Gustav displays his profound ignorance of UNGAR181, in this case w.r.t. who was “intended to be Israeli citizens”.

            Ho hum …

            But the Palestinian Arabs rejected UN GA Res 181, remember?

            Moreover, since it was a GA resolution, it was non mandatory.

            So you know what that adds up to? It adds up to one glaring fact. UN GA Res 181 is dead. D-E-A-D as a door nail!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            … in fact, thanks to the intransigence of the Arabs, it was still born!

            Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Pedro is talking nonsense.

        Article 2 of GCIV talks about when the Convention BECOMES applicable to a territory, and it says: …”the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them”

        That clearly was the case in June 1967, and so GCIV clearly BECAME applicable then.

        Once that happens then you can’t use anything else in Article 2 to make the Convention CEASE to be applicable, since that isn’t Article 2’s job.

        You have to go to Article 6, and it says: …”the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.”

        To this very day this occupation has continued uninterrupted, which means that Israel continues to be bound by the provisions of Article 49, and will continue to be bound by it for as long as this endless occupation ends.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          OK then, let’s put BUBBLE-BOY’s theories through a practical test which does not involve Israel.

          A civil war raged in Syria for the last few years. On the one side we have Assad who wants to keep all of Syria intact under his dictatorship.

          On the other side we have a loose coalition of several Sunni Muslim factions who at a pinch would be willing to secede from Assad’s Syria and form their own state even if their preferred option would be to depose Assad and his Alawite army and take over all of Syria. And at a pinch, I am sure even Assad would put up with the idea of a smaller Alawite state under his control rather than cede everything.

          As the war ebbs and flows, we had refugees fleeing and members of the ethnic group on the winning side taking over. This may fluctuate with Sunnis winning and alternately losing territories. So if Sunnis take over say part of Aleppo and then being chased out by Alawites, would the Alawites be considered belligerent occupiers of such territories which were temporarily controlled by Sunnis? Of course NOT!!! Noone would make such an outrageous claim.

          Yet, BUBBLE-BOY attempts to make such a claim stick with respect to Israel even though “Israel” is just a new name which Palestinian Jews chose to give their designated country which was part of the old British Mandate called Palestine. And no, the new country of Israel never had defined borders thanks to the war which the Arabs started against it in 1947. As I described above.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “OK then, let’s put BUBBLE-BOY’s theories through a practical test which does not involve Israel.”

            OK, that is an excellent idea.
            Give it your best shot…

            Gustav: “A civil war raged in Syria for the”… BZZZZZT!

            A “civil war”, you say?

            Ahem.

            Article 3, Geneva Convention IV.

            You lose, sorry, but thanks for playing….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Bubble Boy did not address a single point which I raised in my previous post.

            Unless of course he thinks that his typical school boyish smart ass comment of saying BZZZZZT! Followed by unrelated comments constitutes an answer.

            Note that at no point did he try to claim that either party which is involved in the Syrian civil war could be considered to be an occupier of any part of Syrian territory under any circumstances. Nor could he explain why the Syrian civil war should have different rules than the civil war which ensued in Palestine between Jews and Arabs in 1947.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Bubble Boy did not address a single point which I raised in my previous post.”

            Hahahahah!

            What. A. Dingbat.

            My argumentative little friend claimed that he was going to put my theories “through a practical test which does not involve Israel.”

            He then proceeded to put forward a thoroughly IMPRACTICAL test i.e. a civil war (a.k.a. “the case of armed conflict not of an international character”).

            From the very instant that be mentioned a “civil war” he immediately INVALIDATED all of the “points” that he thought that he was oh-so-cleverly making.

            Not only that, when I pointed out to him that he had just INVALIDATED his “practical test” he cried foul, stamped his teeny-tiny feet and spat his dummy.

            Apparently he did so because he is completely ignorant of the Geneva Conventions, which draws a very, very clear distinction between “wars” and “civil wars”.

            What. A. Dingbat.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I am a dingbat huh?

            OK BUBBLE-BOY, are you claiming that the war between the Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews was not a civil war in 1947?

            If you do, then you are blinkered.

            If you admit that it was a civil war in 1947, but not now, then tell me, please, when exactly did it stop being a civil war and why?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “OK BUBBLE-BOY, are you claiming that the war between the Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews was not a civil war in 1947?”

            Ho-hum.

            The instant that Israel declared its independence “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations” is the very instant this ceased to be an “armed conflict not of an international character”.

            Even Israel itself admitted that, which it informed the UNSC that its forces were operating “outside the territory of the State of Israel”.

            Gustav, baby, you are advancing an argument that became utterly and completely moot in May 1948.

            That means that it has been 66 years since your lamentable argument became the nonsense that it indisputably is.

            Where have you been all that time? Asleep?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Hey BUBBLE-BOY pay attention and learn something …

            Here is the definition of civil wars:

            “A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.”

            The old British Mandate of Palestine had two groups vying for it. The Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. In 1947, civil war broke out between those two groups. Foreign Arab countries intervened in the conflict on the side of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948. The war with those Arab countries was not a civil war. But the war between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews is a civil war to this day because the original conflict was never resolved. If you disagree then please tell us BUBBLE-BOY, when and where was it resolved?

            Do you know something the rest of us don’t know? Tell us, but please don’t resort to your usual fibs and distortions, OK?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “But the war between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews is a civil war to this day because the original conflict was never resolved.”

            Israel: “The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel”

            Israel: “the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations”

            You are wrong.

            You are actually SO wrong that not even the state of Israel agrees with you.

            The state of Israel declared itself **here**, and so any encampment of the IDF **there** amounts to an expeditionary force, and any control that this expeditionary force establishes **there** amounts to a belligerent occupation.

            That’s not just me says that.

            That’s the Government of Israel saying that.

            That’s the Israel High Court of Justice saying that.

            That’s the IDF itself saying that.

            Would you like the actual quotes, Gustav, or would you prefer to just keep peddling your nonsense?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Again Bubbleboy, which bit of a civil war don’t you understand? Here is the definition of it for the second time …

            “A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.”

            The Jews of Palestine aimed to achieve independence so they formed their own state. The Arabs of Palestine tried to stop them and they are still trying to stop us to this day.

            So please, tell me again Bubbleboy dear, when did this civil war end?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Note that at no point did he try to claim that either party which is involved in the Syrian civil war could be considered to be an occupier of any part of Syrian territory under any circumstances.”

            Yeah, funny that.

            Gustav appears to have not the slightest idea about what makes a “civil war” a… “civil war”.

            After all, a civil war is “the case of armed conflict not of an international character”, which utterly precludes the possibility of a belligerent occupation.

            Think about it…
            Think about it…

            This is axiomatic: you can’t occupy your own sovereign territory. The very concept is an oxymoron.

            This is also axiomatic: a CIVIL WAR is about two sides fighting to determine Who Is The Rightful Sovereign, it isn’t about A War Of Territorial Expansionism.

            Didn’t you know that, Gustav?

            What. A. Dingbat.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “This is axiomatic: you can’t occupy your own sovereign territory. The very concept is an oxymoron.”

            I am glad you said that. This is the only sensible thing in your post. That is why, Jewish Palestinians (Israel) cannot be occupiers of their own sovereign territory which would be an oxymoron in the same way that any Syrian faction which would aspire to establish their own state in any part of Syria would not be considered occupiers of all or parts of those territories.

            As for the definition of civil war, see my previous post. And since the Jews and Arabs of Palestine have still not settled who owns which parts of Palestine since 1947, we are still in a state of civil war with each other till we settle the matter. Pure and simple. It isn’t hard. Only BUBBLE-BOY insists on complicating matters because he has his own agenda. But normal sensible people see what he is attempting to do. He is attmpting to make out the Jewish-Arab civil war in Palestine to be different than the civil war in Syria. Both are anout who owns what and who rules where …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “That is why, Jewish Palestinians (Israel) cannot be occupiers of their own sovereign territory”… BZZZZT!

            Wrong answer, but thanks for playing.

            The instant that Israel declared itself is the instant that “Jewish Palestinians” became “Israelis”.

            It also became the moment when Israel declared itself to be a sovereign state “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”.

            Everything “without” those frontiers is, indeed, “not Israeli territory”, and with that your argument falls to the ground in a screaming heap.

            That’s not just me saying that.

            That’s the Government of Israel saying that.

            That’s the Israel High Court of Justice saying that.

            That’s the IDF commander in the West Bank saying that.

            Indeed, everyone in The Whole Damn World is saying that, except Gustav.

            He lives in a world of exactly one: Gustav-world, where Int’l Law exists for Israel’s benefit, but without any of the obligations.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Indeed, everyone in The Whole Damn World is saying that, except Gustav.”

            Really, Bubbleboy? Then in your bubble-world everything is just rosy, right?

            Everybody agrees about everything except me huh? What next? Are you going to claim that everything is my fault?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Nor could he explain why the Syrian civil war should have different rules than the civil war which ensued in Palestine between Jews and Arabs in 1947.”

            Ho-hum.

            Letter from the Provisional Government of Israel to the UN Security Council, Document S/766 of 22 May 1948 entitled REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE:

            “Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed”

            Outside. The. Territory. Of. Israel.

            Under. The. Control. Of. The. Military. Authorities. Of. The. State. Of. Israel.

            Soooo, you were saying?

            Because the State of Israel does appear to be insisting to the UN Security Council – pinky-promise style – that what was going down wasn’t a civil war.

            After all, you can’t be having “a civil war” when the war is “outside your territory”.

            Not unless you are a Zionist propagandist, in which case up is down, left is right, the sky is green and the grass is blue, and this *is* a “civil war” when it is convenient and it *isn’t* when that becomes inconvenient.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Interesting but this link tells the complete story

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence

            “During the process, there were two major debates, centering around the issues of borders and religion. On the border issue, the original draft had declared that the borders would be that decided by the UN partition plan. While this was supported by Rosen and Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit, it was opposed by Ben-Gurion and Zisling, with Ben-Gurion stating, “We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don’t accept?”[9] The inclusion of the designation of borders in the text was dropped after the provisional government of Israel, the Minhelet HaAm, voted 5–4 against it.[10]”

            Nor are the stories conflicting. The letter by Eliahu Epstein States that the state of Israel was proclaimed within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly. It did not state that Israel considered those frontiers it’s borders.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Too funny.

            I produce an OFFICIAL letter from the government of Israel to the UN Security Council, in which that government sets out the OFFICIAL position of the state of Israel.

            And Gustav thinks that he is trumping that by reproducing scuttlebutt regarding the arguments that were taking place amongst the drafters of the Declaration of Independence.

            I’ve got news for Gustav: an OFFICIAL letter setting out the OFFICIAL position of the state of Israel trumps – absolutely – the “he said/she said” reminiscing David Ben-Gurion.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Yes, I am well aware of that document, though I suspect that it comes as quite a shock to Gustav.

            Since he is unlikely to read it (lest he actually, you know, learns something) here is the first sentence:
            “My dear Mr. President:
            I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” …

            Queue the Gustav-impersonation of Frau Farbissina: Lies! All Lies!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ok Bubbleboy …

            Then presumably if the Sunnis of Syria declare their own state, within Syria, Sunistan (say) and over the years such a state gains more territories, presumably people like you would claim that those additional territories are under belligerent occupation by Sunnistan?

            If so, presumably you would forbid Sunnis from Sunnistan settling on those Syrian territories because you would label those Sunnis as settlers? Even though those Sunnis may just be returning refugees who fled from Assad?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ho hum

            According to BUBBLE-BOY, admitting that exercising control over a piece of land means claiming such lands as it’s borders.

            Reality 1:
            That letter says that Israel claimed to exercise control over the lands within the UN partition recommendation. Does Israel admit by that that those are it’s borders? ANSWER: Of course NOT!

            Reality 2:
            Israel also stated in that memo that it exercises control over lands outside the UN partition recommendation. Does Israel thereby admit that those lands are therefore it’s borders? ANSWER: Of course NOT! It just means what it says it means that Israel controls lands outside the partition recommendations. It does not imply any claims about borders.

            Only in bubble world does it mean anything else.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “admitting that exercising control over a piece of land means claiming such lands as it’s borders.”

            Non-sequitur.

            [Not to mention that “claiming such LANDS as its BORDERS” is akin to a butcher taking a meat cleaver to the English language]

            The issue is territory, not the status of the squiggly lines that separates one territory from another territory.

            Israel: “the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations”

            That’s an authoritative statement by the Government of Israel that all the territory that lies “within” the Partition Plan lines is “Israeli territory”.

            That they slap the label “frontier” on those Partition Plan lines is utterly and completely irrelevant to the fact (and it is fact) that they have just unambiguously defined the territorial extent of Israel.

            Israel: “The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel,”

            Again, the same point applies: it doesn’t matter what label Israel slaps on the squiggly lines that separate **that** territory from any other territory, that is still an authoritative statement that **that** territory is “Not Israeli territory”.

            You can’t escape the consequences of that by applying evasive labels over those squiggly lines.

            It. Does. Not. Matter.

            Israel has formally admitted that the territory that lies to the West of those squiggly lines is “Israeli territory”, and the territory that lies to the East of those squiggly lines is “Not Israeli territory”.

            That’s the only thing that matters, everything else is merely mendacity, obfuscation, propaganda, or outright lies.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Does Israel admit by that that those are it’s borders? ANSWER: Of course NOT!”

            These non-sequiturs of yours are getting very tedious.

            Here is a simple question:
            Q: Does the term “belligerent occupation” refer to “territory”, or does it refer to “borders”
            A: It refers to “territory”.

            Q: So arguing about the status of the squiggly line is…?
            A: A non-sequitur.

            Gustav: “Israel also stated in that memo that it exercises control over lands outside the UN partition recommendation.”

            That claim is a bald-faced lie.

            The statement made by Israel to the UNSC was this: “The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel,”

            That is a completely different statement than the one being claimed by Gustav.

            Gustav: “Does Israel thereby admit that those lands are therefore it’s borders? ANSWER: Of course NOT!”

            Once more with the non-sequiturs!

            NOTE: Gustav does not appear to understand that this phrase “those lands are therefore it’s borders” is meaningless gobblygook.

            Gustav, baby, “land” is a word that has a completely different meaning to “borders”.

            Indeed, “land” is a very different word to “territory”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            In Bubble-World, the term…

            “Exercise Control”

            Means BORDERS.

            In the real world, the term “Exercise Control” means control. It may or may not mean BORDERS.

            That’s it BUBBLE-BOY, your memo proves exactly NOTHING, Nada, Zip, Nil. So snap out of it and stop congratulating yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            “Exercise Control” = “effective control over territory”

            Gustav: “Means BORDERS”

            No, that would be “border control”, and that is a completely different thing.

            The “exercise of control” is a reference to the “authority” that a foreign army “exercises” over an “occupied territory”, and the territorial extent over which that authority “has been established and can be exercised” defines the territory that is under belligerent occupation.

            I’m sorry, Gustav, am I to understand that you don’t know the LEGAL definition of a belligerent occupation?

            Apparently not.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “In the real world, the term “Exercise Control” means control. It may or may not mean BORDERS.”

            Again, Gustav has done nothing except demonstrate that he can not comprehend the difference between “territory” and “borders”.

            Gustav, baby, a belligerent occupation is a concept that is only applied to “territory”.

            It has zero meaning in reference to the word “border”, so arguing “this squiggly line, is it a border? A boundary? A frontier? What, exactly?” is and will always be a non-sequitur.

            Now, I know you don’t understand that. Sure, I do.

            But the reason why you can’t comprehend that is because you are an ignorant and deliberately self-deluded apologist for Israel’s insatiable desire for territorial self-aggrandizement.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The UN: There shall be two states. One Arab on Jewish state.

            Pal Jews: We accept, subject to Arabs accepting.

            Pal Arabs: We don’t accept. All of Palestine is ours.

            The world according to BUBBLE-BOY, In Bubble World …

            That means the Palestinian Jews accepted the UN borders. And he attempts to back up his claim by producing some letters which he did not even back up with a link.

            So in that bubble world, the Palestinian Arabs can attempt to go ‘for broke’ and attempt to usurp everything for themselves. If they succeed, they get everything …

            If the Palestinian Jews succeed to gain control of extra land beyond the UN partition plan, then them “dirty greedy” Palestinian Jews must hand back every bit of extra land especially since BUBBLE-BOY and his buddy dig up some obscure letters written by someone sometime which may have some words which can be twisted to mean that Israel had declared borders written in blood.

            Net result according to BUBLE-BOY …

            The Palestinian Arabs, can do anything. If they succeed, they get rewarded. If they fail, they suffer no penalty.

            REALITY:
            The world does not work like that. People, nations, make their own bed and they then have to lie in those beds. No use crying after you try to rob the other party of everything and you lose, you can’t say: boo hoo give it back, it’s all mine especially if you still don’t agree to make peace. Especially then, you can’t have it back no matter what weasel letters you produce out of nowhere. Because once you make your choice you have to accept the consequences, good bad or indifferent…

            Soooo Bubble Boy, your Palestinian Arabs made their choice of playing a Zero Sum Game and they can’t go back and pretend that nothing happened. They have to negotiate a deal and either accept the most of what is on offer to them or keep fighting. But if they keep fighting, that will have consequences too. Consequences which you and they won’t like.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The UN: There shall be two states. One Arab on Jewish state.”
            Gustav: “Pal Jews: We accept, subject to Arabs accepting.”
            Gustav: “Pal Arabs: We don’t accept. All of Palestine is ours.”

            I think we can add UNGA Resol 181 to the list of documents that Gustav thinks he understands but has never actually, you know, read….

            Because if he did then he’d understand that UNGAR181 is addressed to “the Mandatory Power”, it was never addressed to “the Jews and Arabs of Mandatory Palestine” for their “approval” or “rejection”.

            It simply doesn’t matter what the “Jews of Palestine accepted”, any more than it matters what the “Arabs of Palestine rejected”, once Israel declared itself to be a sovereign state “within frontiers” defined by UNGAR181 then this conflict ceased to be an “armed conflict not of an international nature”.

            Gustav can’t get that simple concept through his skull i.e. declaring the state of Israel has CONSEQUENCES, and one of those is that the territory of the state of Israel is **here**, and everything that is outside that area is “not Israeli territory”.

            QED. Every scrap of territory that Israel seizes that is outside that area is “occupied territory”, and the “occupying power” is “Israel”.

            Honestly, it’s like I’m trying to explain things to a child.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Concepts schmocepts Bubbleboy. You are not the arbiter of them no matter how much you pretend.

            Nor does it matter how I show you the facts of life. Just accept them.

            And the fact is that what you advocate is exactly what I said. You know very well that had the Arabs won the war in 1947-48 there would be no Jewish state today.

            But because we won the major battles to date, you think you can talk us to death till we beg for mercy and go back to the little hole which the UN recommended but which the Arabs rejected.

            But guess what. You live in your bubble world and we don’t heed your obscure letters which you produce out of context and which you interpret your way. We don’t heed it because we live in the real world.

            It is also interesting how you ignore the armistice document which your Arabs signed which clearly state that the 1967 boundaries were not borders. Even though you admit that it is so, you ignore it’s implications and try to pretend that Israel has to act as if those lines were borders by waffling about territories etc. but we ain’t listening. Keep up your enless waffle….

            Waffle … waffle …. waffle

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “It is also interesting how you ignore the armistice document which your Arabs signed which clearly state that the 1967 boundaries were not borders.”

            So we can now add the 1949 Armistice agreement to the list of documents that Gustav claims to know all about but has never actually, you know, read.

            The key passage is this one: “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.”

            The plain meaning of that paragraph is clear: accepting the notion that the armed forces of either side Stay On Their Side Of Those Lines in no way means that anyone is accepting that the “other side” now owns the territory that it has seized.

            And quite right too, because to recognize that would be to recognize an Israeli “right of conquest” (and, equally, a Jordanian “right of conquest”).

            Gustav is therefore simply continuing his (fruitless) attempt to make this a discussion about “borders”, whereas the Armistice Agreement is making this an issue is about “territory”.

            As in: the Armistice Agreement has both sides agreeing that Israel CONTROLS all the territory inside the Green Line, but neither side agrees that this means that Israel now OWNS that territory.

            That’s something that Jordan could never agree to, since that means agreeing with the idea that a country can “acquire territory by war”.

            And we all know how int’l law “emphasises the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”……

            Honestly, Gustav, you are wasting your time Banging On About Borders.

            It is an irrelevance precisely because this is an issue regarding the status territory, not the status of the squiggly lines that separate *this* territory from *that* territory.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Because if he did then he’d understand that UNGAR181 is addressed to “the Mandatory Power”, it was never addressed to “the Jews and Arabs of Mandatory Palestine” for their “approval” or “rejection”.”

            No Bubble boy you are the one who needs to get his facts right …

            The Brits derived their mandate for Palestine from the UN, not the other way around. In fact, the reason why the UN took matters into it’s own hand in 1947 because the Brits got frustrated with what was happening in Palestine and they put back the ‘hot potato’ back into the hands of the UN and to,d them … here it is all yours … it is too hard for us to handle … YOU fix it!

            The UN then tried to do so with their resolution 181 but the Arabs said “NO”! The rest is history …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “So in that bubble world, the Palestinian Arabs can attempt to go ‘for broke’ and attempt to usurp everything for themselves.”

            Indeed, and that is a fact.

            So, where did I say that such behaviour was in any way legal?

            Gustav: “If they succeed, they get everything”

            Straw man.

            At no time did I suggest that the Palestinian attempt to stymie the Partition Plan was in any way legal nor, indeed, did I suggest at they were any more entitled to keep ill-gotten gains.

            There is no such entitlement under international law.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “And he attempts to back up his claim by producing some letters which he did not even back up with a link.”

            Oh, fer’ f**k’s sake!

            I give Gustav the author “The Provisional Government of Israel”

            I give Gustav the UN document number “S/766”

            I give Gustav the date of that document “22 May 1948”

            I even give Gustav the full title of that document “REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE”

            And what happens?

            Gustav: Boo-hoo! You are so mean! How can I find that document?

            You find it by getting off your fat arse and looking for it, Gustav.

            I’ll give you a hint, start here:
            http://unispal.un.org/

            Lazy ignorant sod….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I give Gustav the … and I give Gustav the … and … and …
            blah, blah blah. Don’t you ever get tired of your boring old self, Bubbleboy?

            I tell you what you did NOT give me. You did not give me Israel’s formal Declaration of Independence in which Israel outlines it’s borders. Do you know why you didn’t Bubbleboy? Because you cannot. Do you know why you cannot?

            … BECUSE ISRAL’s DECLARATIION OF INEPENDENCE DOES NOT, I REPEAT IT DOESN’t INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF IT’s BORDERS!!!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You did not give me Israel’s formal Declaration of Independence in which Israel outlines it’s borders.”

            That statement is nonsense on two counts.

            Count (1): I know of no Declaration of Independence by any state wherein the “outlines of its borders” are defined.

            Certainly the US Declaration of Independence does not mention it.

            Does that mean that the United States of America did not have borders in 1776, Gustav?

            The absence of such a statement in THIS declaration of independence in no way indicates that THIS puissant little state is somehow unique in being “a state sans borders”, precisely because NO STATE does that.

            Count (2) Gustav continues to insist that this is an argument about “Borders, does Israel have ’em or not?”.

            That’s a red herring, because the International Humanitarian Laws Of Belligerent Occupations simply don’t give a rat’s arse about “borders”.

            A belligerent occupation is something that happens to “territory”, and so the only relevant question is this:
            Q: Is the West Bank the sovereign territory of the state of Israel?
            A: No, it isn’t, and not even Israel claims that it is.

            Or, as the Israel High Court of Justice oh-so-correctly puts it:
            HCJ 7957/04, Para 14: “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent
            occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation”

            He. Is. Not. The. Sovereign.

            HCJ 7957/04, Para 14: “The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation”

            They. Have. Not. Been. Annexed. To. Israel.

            Honestly, Gustav, ya’ got nothin’.

            Nothin’ at all.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “A belligerent occupation is something that happens to “territory”,

            Yes, Bubbleboy, you keep on babbling about “territory” and you perform every trick in the book to ignore “borders”.

            Now, tell me this … how do you define a “territory”? Isn’t something that is bound by something? … You know, the little old something known as “borders”?

            Don’t you know anything Bubbleboy? Without boundaries, or you might say “borders” (I know it’s hard for you to say), territories could go on forever. That’s why we use borders to define territories.

            Don’t you feel foolish now, Bubbleboy?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Yes, Bubbleboy, you keep on babbling about “territory” and you perform every trick in the book to ignore “borders”.”

            Well, yeah, that’s because I know that the two words are not synonyms, and so only the first one actually matters when discussing “belligerent occupation”.

            Unlike Gustav, who uses “territory”, “land”, and “borders” as if they were words that are fully interchangeable.

            Witness:
            Gustav: “admitting that exercising control over a piece of land means claiming such lands as it’s borders.”

            claiming. such. lands. as. it’s. borders.

            Is that gogglegook, or is it merely incomprehensible?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “how do you define a “territory”? Isn’t something that is bound by something?”

            No, it is most definitely not true that a pre-requisite for a “territory” is that it be “bound” by anything.

            Territory has an e.x.t.e.n.t. (i.e. it must physically exist), but being surrounded by a “border” is not a pre-requisite for the existence of that territory.

            Here, let me show you a very relevant example: the universally-recognized legal definition of an “occupied territory”

            “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
            The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

            Note there is no mention of “boundaries”.

            There is a territory, and it has an “extent”, and that extent defines this territory.

            Honestly, do you know ANYTHING?

            Gustav: “You know, the little old something known as ‘borders’? ”

            Sigh. No, apparently Gustav doesn’t know Jack.

            Hear, repeat after me: A territory does not require borders.

            If you don’t believe me then look up the phrase “Occupied Palestinian Territories”.

            If you don’t know what that means then take up the issue with this dude:
            Mr Ban Ki-moon
            Secretary General
            United Nations
            Sutton Place
            New York

            I’m sure he’ll take the time to explain it to you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”Territory has an e.x.t.e.n.t. (i.e. it must physically exist), but being surrounded by a “border” is not a pre-requisite for the existence of that territory.

            Here, let me show you a very relevant example: the universally-recognized legal definition of an “occupied territory”

            “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
            The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

            Yes … yes … yes Bubbleboy. But when a territory is defined by armistice lines rather than formal borders that means something …

            It means that when that territory is taken over by the other side, someone had to break the armistice agreement which is a kind of truce. And when that happens, it just means that the battle lines shifted. Nothing else. It does not suddenly bestow a new status on those territories or at least it should not. Of course, had the boundaries been borders, then yes, one would talk about occupied territories.

            Now, in the case of the Arab Israeli conflict, guess who broke the armistice agreement in 1967? Of course it was the Arabs. Jordan specifically. And yes, as a consequence, the battle lines shifted and the entire WB came under Israel’s control.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “But when a territory is defined by armistice lines rather than formal borders that means something ”

            No, nothing more than this: the Jordanians refused to accept the notion that any territory seized by the Haganah between 1947-49 because “Israeli territory” merely because the Israeli military would retain control over that territory under the terms of this Armistice.

            That’s it.

            That’s the sum total of the “meaning” of that text.

            Why are you continuing to argue this point, Gustav? You are clearly wrong to insist that the status of the West Bank is in any way “disputed” by anyone.

            It. Is. Not.

            The Jordanians accept that the West Bank is under an Israeli belligerent occupation.

            The Palestinians in the West Bank accept that the West Bank is under an Israeli belligerent occupation.

            The Israelis accept that the West Bank is under an Israeli belligerent occupation.

            So does the UN.
            So does the USA.
            So does the EU.
            So does the Red Cross.

            So does everyone else in the Whole Damn World… except you.

            You continue to insist that *because* the Green Line isn’t a border *then* this can not possibly be a belligerent occupation.

            Dude, you’ve lost that argument.

            You lost that argument a long, long, long, long, time ago.

            That you continue to advance it demonstrates nothing more – nor less – than that you are utterly and completely delusional.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Certainly the US Declaration of Independence does not mention it”

            Apples and Oranges Bubbleboy. You are comparing apples to oranges. If it doesn’t it is because the borders of the US were already known and accepted. All that happened was that the Brits were kicked out and the locals took over. No borders were changed. So there was no need to define borders.

            Are you saying that there is no need to define Israel’s borders somewhere? Yet when Israel declared it’s independence it saw how the situation was fluid because the Arabs were trying to gobble it up so it did not define it’s borders.

            Nor should it have. Because if the Arabs thought it was appropriate to try and terminate Israel, Israel had the right to grab whatever it could out of the old British Mandate territory. So it left it’s borders vague and deliberately so.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “If it doesn’t it is because the borders of the US were already known and accepted. ”

            E.x.a.c.t.l.y.

            I will now point Gustav to the Partition Plan, wherein he will find an exhaustive definition of the borders between the “Arab state” and the “Jewish state”.

            The territorial extant of both states was therefore know to the square inch, and so there was absolutely no need to mention it in the Israel Declaration of Independence.

            Honestly, Gustav, you have no idea what you are talking about: declarations of independence are high-minded and idealistic statements setting out the reasons WHY the state has a right to exist.

            The the nitty-gritty details have no place in such a declaratory bit of fluff.

            You want to know what the borders of any state are? Then you look at the documents that those states address to OTHER STATES, requesting recognition and thus incorporation into the Family of Nations.

            You know, something like this:
            “My dear Mr. President:
            I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I will now point Gustav to the Partition Plan, wherein he will find an exhaustive definition of the borders between the “Arab state” and the “Jewish state”.

            He sounds like a magician, doesn’t he?

            “I will now …. etc etc”

            you know the shpiel, LOL.

            Seriously though. The partition plan? Yeah, Right, he means the one the Arabs rejected and which the Jews of Palestine accepted subject to Arab acceptance…

            That says it all. Since the Arabs did not accept it, the partition plan cannot be applied selectively against the Jews only. Read my lips, Bubble-boy. The partition plan is null and void. In fact, it was still-born, thanks to your Arab friends.

            Look at the Monthy Python video about the dead parrot.

            The partition plan has deceased … it is no more … it is dead … it has gone to heaven to meet it’s maker … it is as dead as a door nail, bubbleboy! Get it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yeah, Right …

            In bubble-world it is possible for one people (the Palestinian Arabs) to disregard the recommendations of the community of nations (the UN), reject the proposed partition borders and make war on the other people (the Palestinian Jews) in order to try to take ALL the land for themselves.

            But the other people (the Palestinian Jews) must stick to their in principle agreement to the deal, no matter what. That means that if they win additional terrotories in the ensuing war which they did not want, they must return those lands if the Arabs stomp their feet and demand it. Because according to Bubble Boy, the Jews of Palestine already agreed to those borders which the Arabs tried to shrink to zero (for the Jews).

            I have news for you, Bubble-boy. The real world does not work that way. If a people like the Palestinian Arabs reject a deal, they cannot cry to get back the original deal after they lose the bloody war which they initiated.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “In bubble-world it is possible for one people (the Palestinian Arabs) to disregard the recommendations of the community of nations (the UN),”

            Rich, indeed, with irony.

            But I will repeat: the recommendation was addressed to the Mandatory Power, and so its legal impact is not dependent at all upon “what the Arabs disregard”.

            Gustav: “reject the proposed partition borders and make war on the other people (the Palestinian Jews) in order to try to take ALL the land for themselves.”

            Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.

            No, it doesn’t.

            The recommendation was to Partition. The entity that this recommendation was addressed to (the Mandatory) agreed.

            That chaos then erupted (and it was not one-sided, no matter how one-eyed Gustav is) does not and can not effect the LEGAL importance of that decision to Partition this territory into two successor states: one *here* and the other *there*.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            You can go on and pretend about your legalities in bubble world, Bubbleboy. But we live in the real world and we do know exactly what would have happened to the legalities had the Arabs won the war. We would not exist any more. And your kind would be leading the cheer squad with your cheers applause and stupid justifications.

            We also know what might still happen if we accept the claims of people such as yourself about what we should or should not do.

            So, guess what? We don’t care what you say. Keep on waffling about what is legal or not legal. We know what is common sense and what isn’t. We also know what we have to do to minimize the chance that your Palestinian Arabs achieving their age old dream of getting rid of us. And we will do whatever is necessary to survive in this rough neighbourhood.

            In the meanwhile, you might consider what you could do for the Aborigines of Australia instead of fruitlessly spending your days here trying to chastise us. Because you are wasting your time. We are immune to what people like you say to us.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “So, guess what? We don’t care what you say. Keep on waffling about what is legal or not legal.”

            And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the proof-positive of the point that was made by the author of this article: Israel abides by international law — when it’s convenient.

            And that is a point that Gustav appears to be proud of. Legal? Ah, who cares? Israel does what it wants, so just shut up and let us go about it.

            Light unto the nations, my arse.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Light unto the nations, my arse.”

            We are not intersted in your arse bubbleboy.

            Nor are most of us interested in being a Light unto the nations. We have had enough of that. It got us nowhere. Now we want to be like you lot. But alas you don’tlike that either. Well, morons like you bubbleboy, anyways…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            This is vintage Bubbleboy hypocrisy.

            BEFORE THE ILLEGAL JORDANIAN INVASION
            ———————————
            East Jerusalem had both a Jewish and Arab population.

            After the invasion, the Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jewish population of East Jerusalem which was clearly an ILLEGAL act.

            AFTER ISRAEL’s DEFEAT OF THE JORDANINS IN A WAR OF SELF DEFENSE IN 1967 …
            ——————————–
            Bubbleboy insists that the original illegal act of ethnically cleansing the Jews of East Jerusalem, 19 years earlier, somehow changed the legalities and Palestinian Jews (Israelis) are no longer allowed to live in East Jerusalem.

            Unbelievable hypocrisy!

            Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        PX: “Until the status of all of the land in the territories is settled by negotiation or annexation, the Geneva conventions will not apply to such matters”

        That is, of course, arse-backwards.

        A final-status agreement will end this occupation (it won’t be a final-status agreement if that didn’t happen) and with the end of the occupation then the applicability of Geneva Convention IV to this occupied territory will also end.

        Article 6, Geneva Convention IV

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          You deliberately chose to misinterpret what Pedro said, BUBBLE-BOY.

          Pedro said that until final borders are negotiated and become internationally recognized, it is impossible to accuse either party of occupying ANY territories because, legally, both Palestinian Jews (Israelis) and WB Arabs have the right to live anywhere in the old British Mandate or historic Palestine.

          Of course, in practice, because the two parties are still at war with each other, they can and do restrict each other as to where they each can live. But that has bothing to do with “legal” or illegal” it has everything to do with the realities of WAR (albeit a low intensity, intermittent, asymmetrical war).

          Reply to Comment
      • Bryan

        Pedro-X: “Israel can build housing for its citizens on land it considers its own. It can transfer criminals from one part of the territory to another even over the armistice lines which the 1949 Armistice agreement did not make a border.” Transparent nonsense. You know perfectly well that large parts of the settlements are built on land owned by Palestinians but confiscated under military occupation. You know perfectly well that Israel is not imprisoning its citizens elsewhere in the country, since these victims of occupation have been tried in kangaroo military occupation courts, not under civil law. If Judea and Samaria are part of Israel then annex the territories and apply Israeli civil law and democracy to the entire state instead of maintaining this Apartheid system of colonial occupation.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Ginger Eis

      This article is serious flawed and has ZERO legal merit. The author claims as follows:

      Under Article 64 of the Convention the penal laws of the occupied territory should remain in force, but may be temporarily suspended and replaced with military law in cases of security or in order to facilitate the application of the Convention.

      This is false.

      ARTICLE 64 § 1 GC IV states as follows:

      “The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be REPEALED or SUSPENDED (emphasis mine) by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.”

      a. The penal law may completely be swept off the table;
      b. The penal law may completely be suspended indefinitely;
      c. There is nothing in the law that about “temporary suspension”.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        What are you talking about, Ginger?

        Of course the Author is talking about the TEMPORARY suspension and replacement of domestic courts by military courts inside an occupied territory.

        After all, he knows – even if every Zionist is in denial – that occupations are intended to be a TEMPORARY state of affairs.

        They are not intended to be PERMANENT.

        Honestly, you do talk nonsense.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Sorry, I meant “the TEMPORARY suspension and replacement of a domestic penal code by a military penal code”

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            You are not making any legal arguments and the fact that you can’t is not my fault. On that ground I shall not respond. Why you chose hostility instead of legal arguments or just keeping your mouth shut, I can’t understand. I guess you are just that way.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            Copping out of the argument again, because you’re being caught talking bullshit? Surprise surprise.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            GE: “You are not making any legal arguments and the fact that you can’t is not my fault.”

            Q: Is a belligerent occupation intended to be temporary?
            A: Why, yes. Yes, it is.

            Q: So if the occupying power “suspends or repeals” a law then is that suspension or repeal intended to be permanent?
            A: No, obviously not.

            Q: Why not?
            A: Because. No. Occupation. Is. Meant. To. Be. Permanent.

            Now, Ginger, can you refute that, or can’t you?

            Reply to Comment
    3. Ginger Eis

      This article further demonstrates that the author has no understanding whatsoever of what he is writing about. This is painful because some people who read here take whatever is fed them as Bible truth. The author claims as follows:

      “In circumstances where military law has been imposed, Article 66 of the Convention provides that persons accused of violating the temporary measures can be prosecuted in “properly constituted, non-political military courts.”

      However, Article 66 GC IV states as follows:

      “In case of a breach of the penal provisions promulgated by it by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 64 ….”

      This article is clearly talking about provisions promulgated on the basis of Article 64 § 2 GC IV, NOT § 1, and is only applicable if the penal code has not been repealed or suspended. If said “repeal” or “suspension” has taken place, Article 64 § 2 GC IV is NOT applicable. ARTICLE 64 § 2 GC IV states as follows: “The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them”.

      The mediocrity at +972mag is really breathtaking, even as it’s columnists are too quick to bash and smear Israel and the IDF!

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        English is not your first language, Ginger?

        Art 64 is clear:
        Para (1): “The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, WITH THE EXCEPTION that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.”

        Para (2): “SUBJECT TO THE LATTER CONSIDERATION and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.”

        The “latter consideration” of Para (2) is an indisputable reference to the “exception” of Para (1).

        Correct?

        Article 66 then reads:
        “In case of a breach of the penal provisions PROMULGATED by IT by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 64 the OCCUPYING POWER may hand over the accused to its properly constituted, non-political military courts, on condition that the said courts sit in the occupied country. Courts of appeal shall preferably sit in the occupied country”

        The word “promulgated” is the key, since that means “the proclamation of a new statutory or administrative law”

        The word “it” is, indisputably, a reference to “the occupying power”.

        So Article 66 is clearly saying that when the Occupying Power replaces the pre-existing penal code with a NEW penal code (one that is, of course, “promulgated by it”) then those NEW penal provisions are to be judged in NEW military courts.

        And quite right too, since the judges who are still in that occupied territory are only authorized to sit in judgement on the domestic laws of their country, they have no authority whatsoever to sit in judgement on any penal laws imposed on this territory by Foreigners With Guns.

        In short: the new penal code has been “promulgated by the military occupier”, and so the penal provisions of that penal code have to be judged in… all-new military courts.

        That isn’t rocket science, Ginger, so why are you having such difficulty comprehending it?

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Wao! What an outburst of emotions! Why are you shouting and yelling? After the sever beatings received last time, I can understand that you would be angry, but honestly, I am a bit overwhelmed by the extent of the vitriol and diatribe you are spewing right now. I have no idea I hurt you that much. Anyways, knock yourself out with your incomprehensible rants. I am not remotely interested.

          Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            You are so incredibly transparent. Is it still funny? I’m not really sure.

            He wasn’t yelling.
            He was putting emphasis on the parts of the convention you clearly did not understand properly. This comments-section does not allow italics or bold, so you have no choice but to write in capitals to make something stick.
            Especially if it’s supposed to stick in your thick head.

            Other than myself, YeahRight did not attack you in any way. He did not spew any vitriol, now did he try to offend you.

            But since you’ve been caught talking out of your ass again, you’re trying to accuse him of doing so. Why?
            To cop out of any actual and meaningful conversation, of course. And so that you don’t have to admit that you were wrong, again. And again. And again.

            Typical hasbarah.

            Now keep in mind that it’s me insulting you. Not YeahRight. He did NOT insult you, nor can I detect any particular rage in his sentences. So maybe you can be so kind and answer his points?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Now would be a very good time to point out that Ginger’s response was devoid of any content except the oh-so-predictable ad-hom.

            Apparently she still hasn’t taken the time to find out the plain English meaning of the word “promulgated”.

            Which is odd, since I gave her the correct definition….

            Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        I realize that my first reply to Ginger may be too long for her to comprehend.

        Here, the shorter version: Ginger needs to look up the meaning of “promulgated”.

        And she needs to identify who is being referred to in the phrase “promulgated by it”.

        Work out both of those puzzles, Ginger, and you’ll have an “oops, my bad!” moment.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          “He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool – shun him.”

          I don’t deal with fools. Take your garbage to someone else. I am not remotely interested.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ginger, I call ‘Yeah, Right’ BUBBLE-BOY because he appears to live in a bubble. He always tries to prove the impossible. You’d be amazed about the claims which he resolutely (I am sure you get my drift) tried to prove to me and he actually appeared to be serious, LOL …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav has taken his lead from Ginger and is, likewise, playing the man not the ball.

            Because note this: neither of them makes the slightest attempt to refute my argument i.e. it is manifestly absurd to claim that an article that talks about “penal provisions promulgated by the occupying power” is meant to refer to the situation where “the penal code has not been repealed or suspended”.

            Ahem.

            This is axiomatic: if the penal code hasn’t been altered then there is nothing for the occupying power to “promulgate”.

            After all, there is no point “promulgating” that Nothing Has Been Changed, Folks, So Just Go About Your Business.

            Q: Why not?
            A: Because such as statement is not actually a “promulgation”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Time to point that – yet again – Ginger has “replied” with a post that was devoid of any content whatsoever.

            Oh, except for the ever-expected ad-hom, that is.

            Still trying to find a dictionary that defines “promulgated” as something other than “proclaiming or declaring a new statutory or administrative law after its enactment”, are we, Ginger?

            Keep looking, but don’t give up your day-job.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You’re being clear and logical. How rude of you.

            Reply to Comment
    4. Lo

      Hey what’s a little torture here and there? When it comes down to the 98% conviction rate in the IDF’s military courts in the West Bank, I think torture is the most provocative issue but not the most relevant.

      Think about secret evidence introduced by the prosecution, protected by “state secrets”. On top of this softer, cleaner way of stacking the deck, torture is more shocking, but probably not the crux of the israeli human intelligence policy.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Yeah, right

      GE: “You are not making any legal arguments and the fact that you can’t is not my fault.”

      Q: Is a belligerent occupation intended to be temporary?
      A: Why, yes. Yes, it is.

      Q: So if the occupying power “suspends or repeals” a law then is that suspension or repeal intended to be permanent?
      A: No, obviously not.

      Q: Why not?
      A: Because. No. Occupation. Is. Meant. To. Be. Permanent.

      Now, Ginger, can you refute that, or can’t you?

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        Well, it IS a pattern. When she knows she’s beaten she, of terminal rudeness, slinks away saying “I can’t possibly debate someone so impolite, such a moron, etc.” You can’t make this stuff up. You just could not believe it if you didn’t see it with your own eyes.

        Reply to Comment
    6. Yeah, right

      It is apparent that there are a lot of people here who do not understand the point that this author is making.

      The argument he makes is this:
      a) Israel insists that its military courts are “established in accordance with international law, and have jurisdiction to hear ordinary criminal cases and cases involving security offenses”
      b) The author points out (correctly) that the ONLY international law that “accords” with that argument is Article 64 and 66 of Geneva Convention IV
      c) But Israel insists that GCIV is not applicable to this occupation.

      Get it?

      The author is pointing to a blatant contradiction in Israel’s argument i.e. Israel insists that it can establish these military courts because they “accord” with those two articles in Geneva Convention IV, while simultaneously insisting that GCIV isn’t applicable to this occupied territory.

      Both statements can not be true.

      As in: if GCIV *isn’t* applicable to the West Bank then no Israeli military court can be “in accordance with international law”, precisely because the only such law…. doesn’t apply there.

      Equally, if these Israeli military courts do indeed “accord with” international law then that can only happen if GCIV **is** applicable to this territory, because THAT is the international law that says that an occupier has the authority to establish such military courts.

      Catch-22.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Yeah, right

      Gustav: “The WB territory itself is NOT under occupation.”

      I have to admit that this bit of nonsense slipped past me.

      It is a claim that is so indisputably wrong that it can not be allowed to stand without challenge.

      Here, I’ll let the Israel High Court of Justice throw down that challenge….

      HCJ 2056/04, Para 1: “Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in
      belligerent occupation.”

      HCJ 2056/04, Para 23: “The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel
      holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica).”

      And since “all parties” include:
      a) The Government of Israel
      b) The IDF commander in the West Bank, and, yes, even
      c) The Beit Sourik Village Council
      then I’m going to have to call you out for the ignorant, lonely little dimwit that you are.

      Because, basically, everyone in Israel and the OPT who matters regarding this matter agrees with me that this a territory that is under the belligerent occupation of the IDF.

      The court agrees.
      The government agrees.
      The IDF agrees.
      Even the occupied agree.

      And Gustav, poor ignorant and lonely Gustav, is sitting over there all by his very lonesome.

      Q: Why?
      A: Because n.o.b.o.d.y. agrees with his argument.

      Not. A. Single. Solitary. Soul.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Yes Bubbleboy. The Israeli Supreme Court agrees with you.

        Now show me where the Israeli Supreme Court agrees with your ‘sledge hammer’ like interpretation of what that means?

        For instance, do they agree that Israeli Jews are verboten from living in the old Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem because they are deemed to be illegal settlers? Of course not!

        As for me, I still stand by my claim that all the historic land of Palestine is disputed because nobody can point out to me valid borders between the proposed state of Palestine and Israel.

        The partition borders? No, because the Arabs rejected those and consequently Israel did not formally declare those borders as it’s own (not withstanding obscure statements in a couple of letters by some Israeli officials). Moreover, the partition was proposed by the UN GA and therefore it was not a mandatory resolution. It was just a recommendation.

        The 1967 boundaries? No of course not. Even you agreed with me Bubbleboy that those were not borders but armistice lines.

        So if there are no agreed borders, then it follows that at least theoretically everything is disputed. In practice, there are likely to be borders somewhere along the 1967 boundaries but not exactly along those boundaries because there is no possible justification to pretend that those were ever borders.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Gustav:”As for me, I still stand by my claim that all the historic land of Palestine is disputed because nobody can point out to me valid borders between the proposed state of Palestine and Israel.”

          And that is the fatal flaw in your argument, Gustav.

          Right there, where you hang your ENTIRE argument on the false claim that territory must – absolutely most – be separated by “borders”, because if they aren’t then it’s a free-for-all.

          It is a nonsense.

          It. Simply. Does. Not. Matter. What. Label. You. Slap. On. The. Line.

          It makes no difference whether you call this line a “border”, “armistice line”, “frontier”, “Green Line”, whatever, so long as everyone agrees that what is on “your side” of that squiggly line is “Israeli territory” and what is on the other side of that squiggly line is “not Israeli territory”.

          And EVERYONE AGREES with that proposition, except you.

          And for as long as EVERYONE AGREES then any territory beyond that line that is seized by the IDF becomes “Israeli occupied territory”.

          Again, EVERYBODY AGREES with that proposition, except you.

          And FOR AS LONG AS THAT IS TRUE then Israel is obliged by international humanitarian law to act in accordance with the laws of belligerent occupation.

          That’s where the disagreement occurs, because this author is perfectly correct: Israel insists that its adherence to those laws is done at its convenience, nothing more.

          You, repeatedly, have agreed that Israel’s adherence to those laws is “voluntary”, not “obligatory”.

          You. Are. Wrong.
          Israel. Is. Wrong.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes Bubbleboy but show me where everyone agrees with your claims?

            Show me where the Israeli Supreme Court agrees with your ‘sledge hammer’ like interpretation of what that means?

            For instance, do they agree that Israeli Jews are verboten from living in the old Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem because they are deemed to be illegal settlers? Of course not!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I do admit though that there are many bubbleboys like you in this world too.

            You dudes believe that all it takes to make places like East Jerusalem off limit to Israeli Jews, is to get an outside hostile country to attack and take control of it for 19 years during which time bar all Israelis from there.

            Then after losing East Jerusalem in another war of aggression, 19 years later, in 1967, you can pretend that because you can label Israel’s presence as belligerent occupation, the very Israelis whose families lived in East Jerusalem are no longer welcome and are verboten from living there forever.

            Ah, what a simple world you people live in Bubbleboy. If only life would be that simple…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Then after losing East Jerusalem in another war of aggression, 19 years later, in 1967, you can pretend that because you can label Israel’s presence as belligerent occupation,”

            Sigh.

            It is a belligerent occupation.
            That Israel says “No! No, it isn’t!” is “null and void and without meaning”, precisely because no occupying power can unilaterally acquire occupied territory.

            Or, in legal-speak: “Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”.

            Gustav: “the very Israelis whose families lived in East Jerusalem are no longer welcome and are verboten from living there forever.”

            Hyperbole + straw man = Gustav.

            I have said – many, many times – that a belligerent occupation is inherently a TEMPORARY state of affairs.

            As in: FOR AS LONG AS THIS OCCUPATION CONTINUES then the occupying power is prohibited from colonizing that occupied territory.

            So where, exactly, did you manage to pluck the word “forever”?

            From your back passage, perhaps?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “It is a belligerent occupation.”

            Yea, so you said a few times. Maybe a hundred or so times? Is that the equivalent of liking to hear your own voice Bubbleboy? … Yes of course … But in the meanwhile you are deliberately evading the point that I made …

            “Or, in legal-speak: “Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”.

            But I already moved on from that because I know that I cannot get around your thick head which is made out of concrete presumably … I was talking about families returning to places where they always lived …

            GUSTAV: “the very Israelis whose families lived in East Jerusalem are no longer welcome and are verboten from living there forever.”

            “Hyperbole + straw man = Gustav.”

            No, not really, Bubbleboy. Especially if you are one of those families. In which case they would be rightfully jumping up and down about why their government (Israel) does not allow them to return where they always lived. And they would not be too impressed if Israel would respond by saying, we can’t let you return even though we know you lived there, because Jordan and their Palestinian Arab cronies kicked you out of there illegally 19 years before.

            Can you get your obtuse little head around that concept, Bubbleboy dear?

            “I have said – many, many times – that a belligerent occupation is inherently a TEMPORARY state of affairs.”

            Really? How do they get resolved and what guarantees do those families have that they would be looked after if in the meanwhile their own government is prevented from doing so by artificial labels?

            “As in: FOR AS LONG AS THIS OCCUPATION CONTINUES then the occupying power is prohibited from colonizing that occupied territory.”

            Colonising? Returning families who lived at a place before would be colonizers? Do you see how stupid that sounds?

            “So where, exactly, did you manage to pluck the word “forever”?”

            Sigh. You don’t like “forever”? Ok, how is this? For as long as at the whim of the Palestinian Arabs there is no agreement and in the meanwhile, the original illegal act of making East Jerusalem Israeli-Jew free becomes a fact on the ground? Even longer than the original 19 years which was already way too long?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Show me where the Israeli Supreme Court agrees with your ‘sledge hammer’ like interpretation of what that means?”

            Sigh.

            My “interpretation” is this: the “status” of the Green Line (“border” vs “boundary” vs “Armistice line” vs w.h.a.t.e.v.e.r.) has no bearing upon the status of the West Bank following its seizure by the IDF in June 1967.

            It is “Israeli occupied territory”, and that occupation does not – and can not – mean that it is now “Israeli territory”.

            That’s my “interpretation”.

            Now, what does the IHCJ say about my interpretation?

            HCJ 2056/04, Para 1: “Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation.”

            HCJ 2056/04, Para 23: “The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel
            holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica).”

            ICHJ 7957/04: “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832).”

            IHCJ 7957/04: “The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel.”

            Or, in short: I win and you are an idiot.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And what do you and the IHCJ say to Israeli Jews whose families lived in East Jerusalem for generations, till the Arabs kicked them out of there illegally and kept them from being there for a mere 19 years?

            What do they say to them when if the Israeli government would point towards them and say that it’s their fault that you can’t return to where you always lived even though we now control East Jerusalem?

            I’ll tell you what: they would say to their government (Israel), just ignore the idiots. We are returning. Like it or lump it. And that’s what actually happened.

            If you don’t understand such sentiments, bubbleboy, then you are the idiot!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “And what do you and the IHCJ say to Israeli Jews whose families lived in East Jerusalem for generations, till the Arabs kicked them out of there illegally and kept them from being there for a mere 19 years?”

            What do I say?

            I say this: you are an Israeli, and therefore you can not “return” until Israel ends this occupation.

            So if you don’t like that then pressure Netanyahu, don’t complain to me.

            After all, an occupation is supposed to be temporary, and it’s Netanyahu – not me – who insists that this one is permanent….

            Gustav: “What do they say to them when if the Israeli government would point towards them and say that it’s their fault that you can’t return to where you always lived even though we now control East Jerusalem?”

            I would say that it isn’t my fault that Gustav is incapable of constructing an intelligible sentence, so they should address their complaints to him.

            I’d also tell them not to expect and intelligible answer, since Gustav appears to be incapable of constructing anything even remotely resembling the English language.

            Gustav: “I’ll tell you what: they would say to their government (Israel), just ignore the idiots. We are returning. Like it or lump it. And that’s what actually happened”

            Annnnnd, once again, Gustav is a poster-child for the point that this author is making: Israel “abides” by international law – when it is convenient.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “And what do you and the IHCJ say to Israeli Jews whose families lived in East Jerusalem for generations, till the Arabs kicked them out of there illegally and kept them from being there for a mere 19 years?”

            BUBBLEBOY:”What do I say?

            I say this: you are an Israeli, and therefore you can not “return” until Israel ends this occupation.”

            But those Israelis could have returned during the 19 years of Jordanian occupation? Of course not. And now when Israel controls East Jerusalem, you want Israel to be the bad police who stop them?

            Why exactly should those Israeli families be punished? Because Israel dared to defend itself from Jordanian aggression again in 1967?

            BUBBLEBOY:”So if you don’t like that then pressure Netanyahu, don’t complain to me.”

            Don’t complain to you? But you are the one who is stopping those Israeli families from returning where they lived before.

            BUBBLEBOY:”After all, an occupation is supposed to be temporary, and it’s Netanyahu – not me – who insists that this one is permanent….”

            Why? Because Netanyahu does not want to give a better peace offer than Olmert?

            GUSTAV: “What do they say to them when if the Israeli government would point towards them and say that it’s their fault that you can’t return to where you always lived even though we now control East Jerusalem?”

            BUBBLEBOY:”I would say that it isn’t my fault that Gustav is incapable of constructing an intelligible sentence, so they should address their complaints to him.”

            Really? So now it is my fault huh? OK then, I’ll fix it in a click of a finger. I would say to Netanyahu, whatever you do, don’t appease our enemies. Let these poor Israeli families return to where their families lived even before the Arab invasion at the 6th century.

            BUBBLEBOY:”I’d also tell them not to expect and intelligible answer, since Gustav appears to be incapable of constructing anything even remotely resembling the English language.”

            Now you have gone too far. I am devastated by your feeble attempt to be funny at my expense. LOL.

            GUSTAV: “I’ll tell you what: they would say to their government (Israel), just ignore the idiots. We are returning. Like it or lump it. And that’s what actually happened”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Annnnnd, once again, Gustav is a poster-child for the point that this author is making: Israel “abides” by international law – when it is convenient.”

            Maybe, maybe not. But if I am, I think we have very good company. Like the whole of humanity because noone would be interested in acting any differently in our place. Except if they would come from bubble-world like you do Bubble-boy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “But those Israelis could have returned during the 19 years of Jordanian occupation? Of course not.”

            And? So? One illegal act justifies another illegal act?

            Not much of an argument, is it…

            Gustav: “And now when Israel controls East Jerusalem, you want Israel to be the bad police who stop them?”

            Sigh.

            The title of this article is: “Abiding by international law — when it’s convenient”.

            You might want to ponder that title while looking back over your question.

            Sunshine, you ask WHY Israel should stop those colonists.

            The answer is simple: Israel SIGNED A F**KING TREATY wherein it agreed that doing exactly under these circumstances is prohibited, for any reason, under any excuse.

            Apparently Israel has a habit of crossing its fingers behind its back when it signs a treaty, thereby makes it A-OK to only abide by international law when it’s convenient.

            Gustav: “Don’t complain to you? But you are the one who is stopping those Israeli families from returning where they lived before.”

            No, follow the bouncing ball:
            (a) int’l humanitarian law says that doing that is prohibited WHEN YOU ARE AN OCCUPYING POWER and
            (b) Netanyahu REFUSES TO END THIS ENDLESS OCCUPATION.

            The fault therefore lies with him.

            Not with Int’l law.
            Not with me.
            Not with the UN.
            Not with the Palestinians.
            Not with anyone else.

            Just Netanyahu.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “The title of this article is: “Abiding by international law — when it’s convenient”.”

            If that is international law then slavery was international law too. Of course Neither slavery nor this nonsense which is peddled against Israel is international law. They were just so called laws interpreted as such by stupid or self interested people.

            If it is international law to make my country stop it’s own citizens from returning to places where they always lived, just because 19 years after that enemy country illegally occupied that land and kicked out my people from where their families lived for generations, then those are NOT real laws. Those are just artificial tools designed to get my country to do what the enemy country could not accomplish by force.

            The enemy country broke an armistice agreement in 1967. That is how we ended up controlling the additional territories. Why do I make the distinction between armistice lines and borders?

            Because borders designate demarcation lines beyond which the land is OWNED by other people.

            Armistice lines on the other hand, are artificial lines which show where a battle ended and the two parties agreed to observe a truce. They are designed to allow the two parties to either negotiate a peace deal or if they can’t they may continue the war at a later time. Unlike borders, armistice lines do not imply anything about who owns what land at either side of the armistice lines.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “If that is international law then slavery was international law too.”

            Ahem. Did everyone notice the change in tense halfway though that sentence?

            As in: GCIV *is* int’l law, whereas slavery *was* once int’l law too… but… it ain’t any more.

            Gustav: “Of course Neither slavery”….

            Correct.

            Gustav:…”nor this nonsense which is peddled against Israel is international law.”

            Incorrect.

            Geneva Convention IV *is* part of international humanitarian law.

            Slavery *was* legal, but not any more.

            Compare. And. Contrast.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Slavery *was* legal, but not any more.”

            In the same way that people like you claim that what Israel does is illegal and bring up consensus to justify your outrageous claims normal people will find that you are/were wrong. In the same way that those who believed that slavery was legal, but turned out to be wrong, your claims will be proved to be wrong too.

            In time, normal law abiding citizens will come to understand that what people like you try to pass as law is nothing of the sort. They will recognize it for what it really is. It is nothing but LAWFARE!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “In the same way that”…

            No, actually, it is not at all the same as your pontificating nonsense.

            Slavery *was* legal, but it isn’t any more. There are indeed international laws that make slavery illegal.

            By way of very marked comparison, the laws of war were updated in 1949, and those updates (the four Geneva Conventions) are *still* an integral part of International Humanitarian Law.

            You can Boo-Hoo! all you want that it is Just So Unfair that Israel is expected to live up to its obligations under International Humanitarian Law.

            Go ahead, scream away, but all you are doing is shouting to the world that The Rules Aren’t Rules Where We Are Concerned.

            International law: something that Israel only abides with when it is convenient.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Slavery was legal because the consensus was that it was legal. But after a lot of soul searching, the consensus changed and slavery became illegal.

            The current consensus regarding the “settlements” is that they are illegal. After a lot of soul searching this too will change and the majority will realize that the settlements were never illegal. Undesirable, maybe. Unwise, maybe. But never illegal.

            Reply to Comment
    8. Phil

      Poor old Gustav..

      In the 19 years the Jordanians occupied EJ, how many Palestinians refugees from West Jerusalem were allowed to return to their property on the Israeli side?? And how many since 67?

      And Yeah Right is not stopping anyone from moving anywhere– the problem is that no-one is stopping the expansion of the settlement enterprise.. and as regards Silwan, tell me exactly how many apartments are occupied by the descendants of Jews who lived there before 1948? I know you can’t..

      Olmerts “offer” – already discussed to death.. all I can say is hahahahahaofferhahahofferhahaha

      And the whole of humanity.. what? If you mean the international community (maybe excluding Micronesia), well it’s quite clear that they agree on the fact that East Jerusalem is under belligerent occupation, therefore Geneva applies, therefore the occupying power cannot colonise the territory with civilians…

      end.of.story.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kiwi

        “In the 19 years the Jordanians occupied EJ, how many Palestinians refugees from West Jerusalem were allowed to return to their property on the Israeli side?? And how many since 67?”

        Poor old Phil with his usual nonsense and false analogies.

        Why should Israel allow Arab refugees and their descendants into it’s own territories? Yes, those refugees fled from those territories, their descendants who were born elsewhere of course did not. But the refugees fled because they and their people started a civil war (as Gustav said) against the Jews of Palestine. A war of their own making which they lost and all wars produce refugees.

        And why should Israel prevent it’s own citizens, who became refugees in the same war which the Arabs started, from returning to places where their families lived continually before the Arabs kicked them out? Why should Israel prevent their return after it gained control of those lands?

        No country would act differently than Israel. Gustav is right about that too.

        Reply to Comment
        • Phil

          sockpuppet

          Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            Whatever …

            You have nothing to say so you resort to silly accusations.

            Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Kiwi: “Why should Israel allow Arab refugees and their descendants into it’s own territories?”

          UNGAR181: “Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.”

          Those Arabs who fled from the Haganah were “displaced”, and therefore their “place of residence” remains the place from which they were displaced from, not the place they fled to.

          They therefore do have a right to return, and the state of Israel has no “right” to deny them that return.

          Oh, look, the UN agrees…
          UNGAR194: “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date”

          Kiwi: “And why should Israel prevent it’s own citizens, who became refugees in the same war which the Arabs started, from returning to places where their families lived continually before the Arabs kicked them out?”

          You have to explain to me how Jews from Russia, Europe and the USA who made Aliyah to Israel are “returning to places where their families lived continually” when they go about colonizing this Israeli-occupied territory.

          Because I would have thought that the plain meaning of your question would have their “return address” stamped as…. Russia, Europe, the USA, etc.

          But, regardless, for ALL Israelis the answer to your question is here:
          GCIV, Article 49: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”

          The equation is simplicity itself: for as long as Israel is the occupier then no Israeli can be allowed to “transfer” to this territory.

          End the occupation = that prohibition also ends.

          Maintain the occupation = that prohibition remains in place.

          Pretty simple, really.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Those Arabs who fled from the Haganah were “displaced”, and therefore their “place of residence” remains the place from which they were displaced from, not the place they fled to.

            They therefore do have a right to return, and the state of Israel has no “right” to deny them that return.”

            Is this the same bubbleboy who says that Israel must keep it’s own citizens out from East Jerusalem even though they too were refugees or descendants of refugees displaced by an invading foreign Arab army?

            According to bubbleboy, Israel must allow enemies and even descendants of enemy refugees to return to their old places of residence amongst Israelis whom they previously attempted to “drive into the sea” (their own words, not mine). But Israel must keep it’s own citizens from returning to their old homes.

            He is a hypocritical clown who espouses double standards.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Is this the same bubbleboy who says that Israel must keep it’s own citizens out from East Jerusalem even though they too were refugees or descendants of refugees displaced by an invading foreign Arab army?”

            Yeah, it is, because I am being consistent.

            You… not so much.

            International law says that the ANYONE who resided in what became “Israel” were…. entitled to be Israeli citizens, and therefore should be allowed to return to their homes inside Israel at the close of hostilities.

            And they return as: “Israelis”.

            International law says that ANYONE who resided in any place that was to become “Palestine” were…. entitled to Palestinian citizens, and therefore should be allowed to return to their homes inside Palestine at the close of hostilities.

            And they return as: “Palestinians”.

            Q: Can they “settle” in Palestine as “Israelis”?
            A: No, that’s illegal.

            Q: Why is it illegal?
            A: Palestine is under an Israeli belligerent occupation, and Geneva Convention IV prohibits the colonization of an occupied territory by citizens of the occupying power.

            Honestly, this isn’t rocket science: FOR AS LONG AS THE OCCUPATION LASTS then Israel is prohibited from “settling” Israeli citizens inside that Israeli-occupied territory.

            End the occupation = end the prohibition.

            Maintain the occupation = the continuation of that prohibition.

            I know that’s damned inconvenient, sure, I know that.

            But belligerent occupations do tend to be damned inconvenient (yeah, funny that..) and if it’s any consolation to you inconvenience is vastly greater for the occupied than it is for your rapacious and insatiable land-grabbing, carpet-bagging, IDF Camp Followers.

            All *they* are inconvenienced about is that they are unable to land at Ben Gurion Airport, shout “I’m home, Ma! I’m home!” and then promptly skedaddle out of Israel to pillage the surrounding territory.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Good try Bubbleboy but you fail again …

            Those Palestinian Arabs whom you claim were entitled to become Israeli citizens, forfeited that right when the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected the UN resolution which would have given them that right. You know … UN Resolution 181.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            … interesting how pro Arab advocates and Arabs want to have their cake and eat it too.

            First they reject the UN resolution which advocated the creation of a Jewish state in part of the old British mandate territory. Then they try to use the very same UN resolution (181) as a right of citizenship for Arab refugees in the Jewish state (Israel).

            For the record, Israel DOES have over 1 million Arab citizens. Those were the Arabs who did not fall for the scare mongering propaganda of fellow Arabs and stayed put.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “interesting how pro Arab advocates and Arabs want to have their cake and eat it too.”

            You *do* understand that “individual human rights” are something completely different to “states rights”, correct?

            You *do* understand that “human rights law” is a different concept to “humanitarian law”, right?

            Because it appears that you don’t, because you certainly don’t appear to understand that “right of return” is argued as the “human right” of each individual Palestinian refugee.

            Certainly UNGAR194 understood that perfectly well, which is precisely why Paragraph 11 said this:
            “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date”

            That’s an individual’s “human rights” the UN is talking about there, so the UN certainly had a firm grasp of this subject 66 years ago.

            So where have you been all this time, Gustav? Asleep under a tree?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I quote none other than yourself, bubbleboy, back to yourself…

            “And that would be a FANTASTIC argument if UNGAR181 was contingent upon a consensus amongst the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine.

            But it wasn’t”

            Yet I proved to you below that IT WAS. And since you conceded that it was a FANTASTIC argument it really IS. So your above post is just BS. Live with it…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Those Palestinian Arabs whom you claim were entitled to become Israeli citizens, forfeited that right when the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected the UN resolution which would have given them that right.”

            And that would be a FANTASTIC argument if UNGAR181 was contingent upon a consensus amongst the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine.

            But it wasn’t.

            It was “recommended to the Mandatory Power”.

            Nobody *except* the UNGA and the Mandatory Power was ever asked to give that Partition Plan their seal of approval, and so the expressed opinion of anyone else meant exactly Jack Shit.

            Because that’s the thing about an “imposed solution” i.e. your opinion isn’t asked for, and if offered is ignored.

            Get it?

            Nothing that the “Palestinian Arab leadership” said or did could affect the rights and entitlements of the individuals who lived in Mandatory Palestine, and that is true regardless of whether those inhabitants are Arab or Jew.

            No “leadership” does when a solution is imposed upon them from above.

            I guess that’s why it is called an “imposed solution”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “And that would be a FANTASTIC argument if UNGAR181 was contingent upon a consensus amongst the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine.

            But it wasn’t.

            It was “recommended to the Mandatory Power”.

            I have already refuted this BS of yours more than once but it seems you need an ‘internet hearing aid’.

            No Bubbleboy. It was the other way around. The Brits were given the mandate by the UN. They were told to fix up Palestine but they found that they could not. And when things became too hot, they handed the hot potato back to the UN and said to the UN, “YOU fix it …”

            The UN then tried to fix it by voting for UN Resolution 181 which your Arabs promptly rejected.

            You wanna check it out? Go read up on the fact that both the Arabs and the Jews were lobbying the UN to pass the resolution which they wanted. And then try to tell me that UN Res 181 was not aimed at the Arabs and the Jews directly.

            You might also explain to me why UN Res 181 was not implemented if it was directed at the Brits?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The Brits were given the mandate by the UN.”

            No, actually, they weren’t.

            So we can add the Mandate for Palestine to the documents that Gustav has never read.

            Because if he had then he’d know that the Mandate for Palestine was given to Britain by the pre-WW2 League of Nations, not the post-WW2 United Nations.

            Gustav: “And when things became too hot, they handed the hot potato back to the UN and said to the UN, ‘YOU fix it …’ ”

            No, actually, that’s not what they did.

            So we can add the UNGA Resolution 181 to the list of documents that Gustav hasn’t read.

            Because if he had then he’d know that the Mandatory Power requested that the UN form a Special Committee to ADVISE the Mandatory on a plan of action.

            It says so, on the very first line.

            Gustav: “The UN then tried to fix it by voting for UN Resolution 181 which your Arabs promptly rejected.”

            Ahem.

            UNGAR181: “Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below”

            Recommends. to. the. United. Kingdom. as. the. Mandatory. Power.

            You are simply lying, Gustav.

            UNGAR181 was not – and was never intended to be – contingent upon “acceptance” by the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine.

            Their opinion was not sought, was not required, and if given was ignored.

            All that mattered was this: the UNGA formed a subcommittee to advise a plan for the Mandatory Power, at the request OF that Mandatory Power.

            The Mandatory Power then took that Plan (Partition that sucker, baby!) to the UNGA to ask, essentially, this: do you agree that I should do this?

            To which the UNGA replied: Hell, yeah, Partition that sucker!

            Everyone else was an onlooker, and so their opinions meant Jack Shit.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Nah, Bubbleboy, the only liar around here is YOU. Here are a couple of paragraphs straight out of Wikipedia. You can google it and verify it for yourself:

            “These events were the decisive factors that forced Britain to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. Seven members (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. Three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.

            On 29 November, the UN General Assembly, voting 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II).,[46] while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. The partition plan required that the proposed states grant full civil rights to all people within their borders, regardless of race, religion or gender. It is important to note that the UN General Assembly is only granted the power to make recommendations, therefore, UNGAR 181 was not legally binding.[47] Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. Haiti, Liberia, and the Philippines changed their votes at the last moment after concerted pressure from the U.S. and from Zionist organisations.[48][49][50] The five members of the Arab League, who were voting members at the time, voted against the Plan.”

            It backs up exactly what I said.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “It backs up exactly what I said.”

            Nooo, it doesn’t, and I can point you to the EXACT point where that article pulls your chain.

            It’s right here:
            …”adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181″…

            A recommendation, you say?
            Gosh! To whom, exactly?

            Why, … Wiki doesn’t say!

            How odd, since it’s axiomatic that this would be an important fact when working out the legal impact of that vote.

            Hey, no matter, I’ll ask Gustav, because I know that he knows!

            Please tell me, Gustav, to whom did the UN General Assembly “recommend” this Partition Plan?

            I know you know, because I’ve already quoted you the relevant line of text.

            But, please, let everyone else in on the secret….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            With the above post of yours BUBBLEBOY, you have out done even yourself with your silliness. Read the first paragraph of that quote ….

            “These events were the decisive factors that forced Britain to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the Question of Palestine before the United Nations”

            Get it? The Brits threw up their hands in horror and handed back their mandate to the United Nations. They said, we can’t do it you do it …

            “The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives Sent from my iPad

            The UN then created UNSCOP to survey the situation …

            After long deliberations the UN came up with it’s UN resolution 181 which WAS a recommendation …

            “On 29 November, the UN General Assembly, voting 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II).”

            A recommendation to the affected parties, Jews and Arabs and to the rest of the world…

            But here is the clincher, Bubbleboy …

            “The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal.”

            In other words, after the British withdrawal, the partition would take effect. In other words, the Brits had nothing to do with it. And it’s logical too. By what stretch of the imagination does the world body report to Britain rather than the other way around? Look up the word “MANDATE”. It means …

            “1. an official order or commission to do something.
            “a mandate to seek the release of political prisoners”

            In other words, the UN which was the successor to the League of Nations, gave the Mandate to Britain to do something and after they could not do it, the UN did it, itself!

            Honestly, Bubbleboy, don’t you know anything?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Nah, Bubbleboy, the only liar around here is YOU.”

            Yeah, that’s right, **I’m** the only one who is lying when **Gustav** says “The Brits were given the mandate by the UN”

            How does that work, exactly?
            Am I using some mind-control ray?

            Or did I slip an hallucinogen into your Kool-Aid?

            I’m really curious: how is it that **I** am the liar when it is **YOU** who said “The Brits were given the mandate by the UN”?

            Please, explain that to me, because from here it looks an awful lot like the equation is:
            lies + hyperbole = Gustav

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yea, you are the liar Bubbleboy. And this was your lie …

            “UNGAR181 was not – and was never intended to be – contingent upon “acceptance” by the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine.”

            The bit about the UN being the successor to the League of Nations is just a side issue, a red herring which you desperately seized on in order to side track the discussion from the main point.

            But you know what? I agree that the League of Nations was the one that handed the Mandate about Palestine to the Brits. And the UN was the successor of the League of Nations which means that the Brits subsequently were answerable to the UN, not the other way around.

            Kapish, Bubbleboy?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Yea, you are the liar Bubbleboy. And this was your lie …”

            Me: “UNGAR181 was not – and was never intended to be – contingent upon “acceptance” by the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine.”

            UNGAR181: “Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;”

            I win, you lose.

            That quote is proof-positive that UNGAR181 was contingent upon the “adoption and implementation” by (a) The Mandatory Power and (b) all the other nations in the UN.

            Nowhere – but nowhere – does UNGAR181 “recommend” that either the Jews or the Arabs of Palestine “adopt and implement” this plan of partition.

            They weren’t being *asked*.
            They were being *told*.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Which bit of the followin does our brain-dead friend does not understand?

            “But here is the clincher, Bubbleboy …

            “The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal.”

            Yeah, UN GA res 181 was aimed at the Brits who had to make it effective ion the day of their withdrawal without the cooperation of the Arabs and the Jews? How exactly?

            Reply to Comment
    9. Gustav

      No Bubbleboy it isn’t the simplistic but distorted picture which you are trying to depict.

      What you are trying to peddle is that the side which suffered an unprovoked aggression (us) should bear the brunt of the consequences of that aggression.

      And worse than that. You expect us to penalize ourselves and reward the people who committed the act of aggression against us.

      It ain’t gonna happen Bubbleboy. Not in my lifetime or yours. No amount of LAWFARE by you or anyone else will convince us to be stupid and shoot ourselves in our collective feet. Live with it!

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Gustav: “No Bubbleboy it isn’t the simplistic but distorted picture which you are trying to depict.”

        I am suggesting that the diplomats who framed the Geneva Conventions knew what they were talking about, and therefore if you Sign Onto That Convention then you need to Abide By Its Rules.

        You disagree.

        You insist that abiding by those rules becomes unnecessary the moment you evoke the motive and unsubstantiated nonsense that you just spouted.

        Your invective becomes a magic wand, and by waving it about Israel’s head it no longer is beholden to the very int’l laws that it signed by its own free will.

        Just listen to yourself:
        …”suffered an unprovoked aggression (us)”…
        …”You expect us to penalize ourselves”…
        …”reward the people who committed the act of aggression against us”…

        Yeah, because it is a self-evident truth that shouting “I’m The Victim Here!” means that you must be the victim. After all, why else would you shout that?

        Remind me again: who is occupying whom? Hint: No Israeli territory has ever been under the belligerent occupation of another country.

        Work out this puzzle: one side has been CONSTANTLY expanding its territory at the expense of the neighbours. Hint: It is the state whose name starts with “I” and ends with “l”.

        Consider this: Only one state on Planet Earth is still engaged in 19th century colonialism. Hint: it isn’t “Palestine”.

        It is the oldest trick in the book to shout “They started it!” even when it is indisputably true that you are always beating the crap out of them.

        Don’t believe me? Then look up the “the Gleiwitz incident”.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “I am suggesting that the diplomats who framed the Geneva Conventions knew what they were talking about, and therefore if you Sign Onto That Convention then you need to Abide By Its Rules.”

          I know what you are suggesting bubbleboy. You are suggesting that we should fall for a simplistic stupid interpretation of the law. Shady lawyers do that sort of thing all the time. So do used car salesmen when they try to sell their cars with modified mileage meters.

          You know what that practice is called when applied to international law? It is called LAWFARE. Which is just another form of warfare to get what you want which you could not get on the battlefield, using distorted interpretations of the law instead.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You are suggesting that we should fall for a simplistic stupid interpretation of the law.”

            This is a fact: Israel is the occupying power.

            This is also a fact: Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

            This is also a fact: Geneva Convention IV prohibits an occupying power from colonizing occupied territory.

            This is also a fact: Every single “Jewish settlers” is also an “Israeli colonist”.

            Every. Single. One. Without. Exception.

            The plain reading of Geneva Convention IV makes Israel’s colonization of this territory illegal.

            You decry that as “simplistic”, but it isn’t.

            It is “indisputable”, and it is also “inconvenient”, and the latter is the real reason why you want to dismiss it.

            Israel: the state that abides by international law — when it’s convenient

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “This is also a fact: Every single “Jewish settlers” is also an “Israeli colonist”.

            Yeah, Israeli Jews and their families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and who returned there after 1967 are colonists. Yeah, Right … are you listening to yourself? It ought to be a joke but it isn’t because you people are deadly serious. And you are convincing yourselves that what you say is reality….

            …And that is tragic because you are complicating the process to resolve this conflict and to end the occupation.

            You and your Arabs painted yourselves into a corner and you expect us to extricate you from there by giving in to your stupid demands. But we won’t because we found out that no amount of appeasement of you works. You always come up with new accusations and demands. You will just have to work out a way of finding your senses and extricate yourselves from the mess into which you painted yourselves into, so that sensible negotiations can get underway to resolve this 100 year old conflict. Till you do, nothing will happen because our patience has run out with you!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Yeah, Israeli Jews and their families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and who returned there after 1967 are colonists”

            I’m (slightly) curious: do you really believe that the 350,000 Israeli colonists in East Jerusalem descend from the “families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem”?

            Really?

            So how do you account for the broad American accents, the thick Russian accents, the guttural Romanian speakers and the quaint Dutch-accented Hebrew?

            Because that’s the problem with your argument i.e. the overwhelming majority of Jews who are now in East Jerusalem got there from Who-Knows-What corners of the globe.

            Or, put another way: the percentage of those “settlers” who could legitimately lay claim to belonging to “families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem” would be in single figures, if that.

            And I’m also (slightly) curious: there are 400,000 “Jewish settlers” in the West Bank. Are you claiming that they are all the lineal descendants of the Jews who were forced to flee from that territory between 1947-49?

            You do know that the number of Jews who would have ended up inside the “Arab state” in the Partition Plan numbered less than 10,000?

            You do know that, right?

            Because if you did know that then you’d also know that there is no way to make your numbers actually add up.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I’m (slightly) curious: do you really believe that the 350,000 Israeli colonists in East Jerusalem descend from the “families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem”?”

            Non sequitur. You guys are yelling irrespective of the numbers.

            I have never heard a single Arab or pro Arab say, “we are ok with 50,000 Jews in East Jerusalem who are the refugees or their families. The yells I keep on hearing is that we want no Jews in East Jerusalem.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Non sequitur.”

            No, sorry, it most definitely is not a non-sequitur.

            You justify Israel’s policy by saying this: “Yeah, Israeli Jews and their families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and who returned there after 1967 are colonists”

            It is perfectly legitimate to question the corner-stone of that argument i.e. the claim that these colonists are “Israeli Jews and their families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem”

            I’m saying that claim is untrue.
            I’m saying that THESE colonists are not the “Jews and their families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter”.

            I am correct: they are not.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I’m saying that claim is untrue.
            I’m saying that THESE colonists are not the “Jews and their families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter”.

            I am correct: they are not.”

            You are saying? Who cares what YOU are saying? I am interested in what the Palestinian Arabs are saying.

            The Palestinian Arabs are saying that ALL Jews who live in East Jerusalem are colonizers.

            They ars not saying that SOME of the Jews are colonizers. They are saying that ALL of the Jews are colonizers.

            They are not saying, “you … you … and you can stay because you are either a refugee yourself or a descendant of a refugee…” They are saying that ALL the Jews of East Jerusalem are colonizers.

            Come to think of it, Bubbleboy, you too said the same thing. But are you sure that some of those East Jerusalem Jews are not ex refugees from East Jerusalem or their descendants?

            It is however good to see you now shifting your argument to this latest non starter. Some of the things I have been telling you must be sinking into your subconscious and you are doing a double shuffle, LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “I have never heard a single Arab or pro Arab say, “we are ok with 50,000 Jews in East Jerusalem who are the refugees or their families. The yells I keep on hearing is that we want no Jews in East Jerusalem.”

            Now THAT’s a non-sequitur.

            Gustav gave HIS OWN argument why those 350,000 Israeli settlers have to be allowed to “return” to East Jerusalem.

            I pointed out that HIS OWN argument fails ITS OWN LOGIC.

            Responding by pointing out what Other People Are Arguing is therefore a non-sequitur, since the issue here is The Internal Logic Of His Own Argument.

            Gustav’s OWN ARGUMENT is either internally-consistent or it is self-contradictory, but either way his argument stands or falls on its own merits.

            And in Gustav’s case his OWN ARGUMENT falls to the ground, since the foundation that it is built upon is nothing but piss and wind.

            Why?

            Because his OWN ARGUMENT only grants the “return” of the descendants of the Jews who lived in East Jerusalem in 1947-49, and they would number nowhere near 350,000.

            Yet there they are, all 350,000 of them.

            Clearly the Israeli Government is using criteria very different to Gustav’s….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Now THAT’s a non-sequitur”

            Really, Bubbleboy?

            Well then think about this. There are nearly 200 posts on this thread. Nearly half of them are yours. But with the exception of the last few posts, you always expressed your position as ….

            NO ISRAELI JEWS IN EAST JERUSALEM!!!

            Never did you qualify it. Never did you say …

            NO ISRAELI JEWS IN EAST JERUSALEM who are not refugees or their descendants …

            Again, you said ….

            NO ISRAELI JEWS IN EAST JERUSALEM!!!

            Period. So what does that tell us? It tells us that what you said is a non-sequitur.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “But with the exception of the last few posts, you always expressed your position as”…

            sigh. Yet another non-sequitur.

            You expressed YOUR OWN opinion.

            I then pointed out that even under YOUR OWN logic YOUR OWN opinion fails the most elementary of tests.

            Pointing out that MY opinion is completely different is a non-sequitur, because what I was specifically commenting on in this particular thread is the failure of YOUR OWN internal logic.

            As in: Gustav claimed *this*.
            Q: Is *this* factually-correct?
            A: No, it isn’t.

            That’s the only relevant Q&A with respect to Gustav’s OWN CLAIM i.e. his OWN CLAIM either stands or falls on ITS OWN merits.

            And…. it falls, because there is no merit to that claim.

            None. Whatsoever.

            Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “It is the oldest trick in the book to shout “They started it!” even when it is indisputably true that you are always beating the crap out of them.”

          Is it? Then I guess the USA used the oldest trick in the book when they retaliated against Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack. The Americans too shouted…

          “They started it …!”

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “You are always beating the crap out of them.”

            Non sequitor. The fact that we won all the major battles does not negate the fact that the Arabs started their war against us.

            The USA too beat the crap out of Japan. That did not make the US the aggressors. Did it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Then I guess the USA used the oldest trick in the book when they retaliated against Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack.”

            Ahem. Just as the Japanese shouted that the US oil blockade was a legitimate casus belli that justified their attack.

            So I can see that the point I was making flew way, way, way over your head.

            The point is this: it is much too easy for you to shout “They started it!” even as you launch yourself into the attack.

            Indeed, it is so common that modern International Humanitarian Law simply doesn’t care any more e.g. the Geneva Conventions concerns itself only with the legal concept known as “Jus in Bello”.

            If you don’t understand what that means then here is an example:
            Egypt: Ouch! They started it!
            Israel: You were asking fer’ it!
            GCIV: We don’t care. This is war, and that means that *you* and *you* now have to conduct yourselves *thus* and *so*.

            That’s “Jus in Bello”.

            What you are claiming is that Israel can evade those rules by shouting “They Started It!” louder than the other side can shout “No! You Did!”.

            But that argument falls under the concept of “Jus ad Bellum”, and while it is an interesting subject in its own right the Geneva Conventions simply couldn’t care less about that.

            All the Geneva Conventions care about is this: Once you two dickheads Get Yer’ War On! then these are the rules that you have to follow, so… follow ’em.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Nice theory Bubbleboy but real life is not bubble world.

            Here is an example …

            You people always yell at us but you never yell at them. And if we would listen to you then our enemies would take what we give and try to kick the shit out of us while you would sit around and nod with approval. Come to think of it, not only you would but that is exactly what you do …

            That is why we ignore you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Hyperbole + eternal victim = Gustav.

            Even as Israel occupied the West Bank the victim is…. Israel.

            Even as Israel colonizes this territory the victim is… Israel.

            Even as the Palestinians are evicted from their homes, arrested, shot, deprived of water, incarcerated in huge numbers the victim is…. Israel.

            And then the Israelis wonder why they have such an image problem.

            Yeah, must be anti-Semitism.
            Must. Be.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”Hyperbole + eternal victim = Gustav.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Even as Israel occupied the West Bank ….”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Even as Israel colonizes this territory …”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Even as the Palestinians are evicted from their homes, arrested, shot, deprived of water, incarcerated in huge numbers”

            Sorry, Bubbleboy, what were you muttering about victimhood?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh and Bubbleboy …

            Stop pretending that what I said consisted ONLY about who started it. Sure, that is very much a relevant part of the story too but I never claimed that it was the whole story.

            Wanna know the whole story? Go back and read my posts. Unlike you, I don’t make it a habit to repeat myself endlessly unless you force me to. But in this instance, I don’t feel it necessary for me to repeat myself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Sorry to butt in here, it’s been educational. But I can’t resist.

            GUSTAV: “Nice theory Bubbleboy but real life is not bubble world.”

            1. Nope. The Geneva Conventions are most definitely real life, born of the very real horrors of the 20th Century. And Israel is a signatory. That is reality. And Israel ought to be especially dedicated to the Geneva Conventions given it’s birth out of those horrors.

            2. Please lose the cheap name calling habit (“BUBBLEBOY… WHATSHISFACE…etc.). It is ugly and tiresome and only betrays a lack of substance or an insecurity that you resort to it. Note YR does not.

            GUSTAV: “It is called LAWFARE. Which is just another form of warfare…. And if we would listen to you then our enemies would take what we give and try to kick the shit out of us while you would sit around and nod with approval.”

            1. With all due respect, this is kind of your core paranoid belief and justification, Gustav. It underlies ALL your arguments and it is why your arguments in my opinion dead end as they do. Here you’ve resorted to scolding YR for allegedly using “theory” and departing “real life” then turn around and depart into a conviction that brooks no argument or challenge because it is fixed, false but not falsifiable in the scientific Popperian sense that a scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable.

            2. My assessment is that as YR has successively dismantled your arguments logically you resort to this kind of dodge: “nice theory but….” Or “It is called LAWFARE. Which is just another form of warfare…” when you don’t like the law simply because Israel is in reality in violation of that law.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            No Brian, please don’t apologize. I know poor old Bubbleboy needs all the help he can get.

            I am all for the Geneva Conventions. I just don’t agree with the way you people interpret them. You don’t believe me? Well then, show me where the Israeli High Court ruled that Jewish people in East Jerusalem are a forbidden thing?

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Well then, show me where the Israeli High Court ruled that Jewish people in East Jerusalem are a forbidden thing?”

            Israel annexed Jerusalem illegally. Jerusalem is outside the territory of the Israeli state:

            http://pages.citebite.com/x1r0b4d1y6mkv

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            … You don’t say JewMuslim .. I didn’t know daaaaat. Not much huh?

            But we were not talking annexation here. We were talking about whether Israeli Jews are allowed to live in the old Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem or not …? Get it? The Jewish quarter … are Israeli Jews allowed to live in a place called THE JEWISH QUARTER or not?!

            What do you say?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “But we were not talking annexation here.”

            Then you loose the argument, because absent an annexation this is an Israeli-occupied territory, and that brings Article 49 of GCIV into the equation.

            Gustav: ” We were talking about whether Israeli Jews are allowed to live in the old Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem or not …?”

            And the answer to that question is simple: Israel is prohibited from transferring its citizens into that territory for as long as this territory is under its belligerent occupation.

            End the occupation = the end of that prohibition.

            Maintain the occupation = the prohibition continues to apply.

            It really is that simple, and it is Gustav who wants to make it complicated i.e. he want to make an emotive argument (not a legal argument) that Israel should be allowed to evade that prohibition because, boo-hoo!, it’s just so unfair!

            He is wrong: the law allows no exceptions based on an appeal to emotion.

            Let’s now all stand back and give Gustav the room he needs to shout – yet again – Boo-Hoo The Law Is So Unfair!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Then you lose the argument …”

            BS Bubbleboy. I don’t. Wanna know why? Well i’ll tell ya anyways …

            Because not everyone interprets the Geneva conventions in the same way that you lot do.

            Geeeez, that must be a real shock to your system, huh?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Because not everyone interprets the Geneva conventions in the same way that you lot do.”

            Everyone does, Gustav, except Israel.

            Israel is utterly alone in insisting that the Geneva Conventions only have to be abided by when that is convenient.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “What do you say?”

            Defining your borders is a bitch.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh and Brian, I am sorry that the name Bubbleboy upsets you so much … I truly am sorry …

            But I just can’t take someone who calls himself ‘Yeah, Right’, too seriously. Particularly since he posts the drivel which he posts pretending that he is full of aplomb but which is nothing but school boyish theatrics.

            I am sorry but it just brings out the worst in me.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “I am sorry but it just brings out the worst in me.”

            A statement that rather presupposes that there is a better part to Gustav’s nature.

            Doubtful. Very, very, doubtful.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Awww shucks, Bubbleboy. Did I hurt your fragile little feelings?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Awww shucks, Bubbleboy. Did I hurt your fragile little feelings?”

            No. You flatter yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            The irony is, Gustav, that is you who seems to live in a right wing media bubble, with only scant exposure for example to Haaretz–an indispensale part of your national conversation that you for the most part avoid–you have no subscription to it and so you miss out on crucial information at odds with your tightly held set of convictions. It’s clear from reading you that you lack any real encounter with its pages and suffer from confirmation bias. Everyone here should have a subscription to Haaretz. Honestly, there is no way to really see the conflict in its fullness without it. If you just read the Jerusalem Post, etc., you are living in a parallel universe.

            Everyone here should read this series–this is the first of a multipart series aparently, on Jerusalem. I can see that much of the above dispute takes place in an information vaccum about what really goes on:

            http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.629025#

            East is east: A series of articles on the processes that led to the outbreak of violence in Jerusalem

            Article 1: The dialectic of Israelization — the violence broke out even as East and West Jerusalem were drawing closer to one another
            By Nir Hasson | Nov. 28, 2014 | 4:05 PM

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Awww shucks, Bubbleboy. Did I hurt your fragile little feelings?”

            No, and you flatter yourself by claiming otherwise.

            No real, surprise, of course, since you appear to possess a limitless capacity for self-delusion.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Well Bubbleboy, don’t blame me. I am just the messenger. But to anyone who is not delusional, you appeared to be hurting from the top of your shrunken little head to the bottom of your teeny weeny little toe.

            Poor Bubbleboy …

            Reply to Comment
    10. Yeah, right

      Gustav: “Wanna know the whole story?”

      sigh

      Gustav tries yet again to explain why Israel must – absolutely must! – ignore the obligations that it freely entered into when it signed a binding treaty.

      International law? Hah! Only when it’s convenient.

      And when it’s not? Well, let me just tell you the “whole story” on that….. but keep a tissue handy, because it’s a real tear-jerker.

      Yeah, sure, Gustav. Cry me a river.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “Yeah, sure, Gustav. Cry me a river.”

        Nah, I don’t need to. I know that you guys here are a lost cause. Nor, contrary to your self important beliefs are we losing sleep about you guys. You are just not that important! There are plenty of REAL people out there in the non bubble world who agree with us.

        They see the Geneva Conventions and they don’t interpret them in the silly lopsided way which you CHOOSE to interpret them.

        Reply to Comment
        • MuslimJew

          “Nah, I don’t need to. I know that you guys here are a lost cause. Nor, contrary to your self important beliefs are we losing sleep about you guys. You are just not that important! There are plenty of REAL people out there in the non bubble world who agree with us.”

          Quit making a fool of yourself then, and go enjoy your bubble world before it bursts.

          Reply to Comment
      • When you provide the facts and the truth in painstaking detail, the end result is always the same, either we don’t care or you’re not important which is hysterical as Gustav has been on you like spots on dice and he’s been reduced to the you’re wrong and on top of that you’re not important, you’re WHATEVER, you’re Bubbleboy. Trying to diminish what you say be name-calling. Well done Yeah, right.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Whoa …

          They are all coming out of the woodworks now. Or is it from under their rocks?

          Must have trodden on some raw nerves … LOL.

          Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Poor Marnie…

          Reassuring herself again. I must have shaken her little bubbles too. LOL.

          Reply to Comment
    11. The Trespasse

      Did autor of this article had ever bothered to actually read Geneva Conventions he allows himself to have an opinion on? Unlikely, for if he did, he would had known that only a country can be occupied by another country.
      ‘Palestine’ never was a country, therefore it can not be occupied. Technically.

      “ARTICLE 76 [ Link ]

      Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country…”

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        TT: “Unlikely, for if he did, he would had known that only a country can be occupied by another country.”

        Israel High Court of Justice: “Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation.”

        IHCJ: “The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica).”

        Apparently everyone – but everyone – is on the author’s side: the West Bank is an occupied territory, and the occupying power is the IDF.

        Q: Who in authority is on TT’s side?
        A: Nobody, actually.

        Not Israel’s supreme court.
        Not Israel’s government.
        Not Israel’s armed forces.
        Not N.o.b.o.d.y.

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        TT: “‘Palestine’ never was a country, therefore it can not be occupied. Technically.”

        Ahem.

        Syria, 1941.

        Definitely not “a country”, since is was a LoN Mandated territory.

        Definitely invaded by the forces of Great Britain in Operation Exporter.

        Q: Did the British quibble that “this isn’t an occupation”?
        A: No, they acknowledged that they were an occupying power.

        There were, of course, several examples of Mandated territories being invaded by allied or axis forces in WW2.

        All led to a belligerent occupation, and not once did the occupier claim “No, actually, it isn’t!”.

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          You’ve dismantled every one of their arguments but they like to recycle them. How many cycles now of “never was a country, therefore it can not be occupied” have we been through now?

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Brian, they are simply following hasbarah SOP: conflate two issues into one so that they can obfuscate regarding both.

            Because there really are two propositions in play here:
            1) Is this an occupied territory?
            2) Are the articles of Geneva Convention IV applicable to this particular belligerent occupation?

            It is perfectly logical to argue that (1) is true but (2) is false (Israel’s argument).

            It is also perfectly logical to argue that both (1) and (2) are true (everyone else’s argument).

            Just as it is perfectly logical to argue that (1) is false, therefore (2) is moot (but nobody actually argues this).

            But what is illogical is to argue that because (2) is false then that must mean that (1) is also false (Gustav and TT’s argument).

            Is the first proposition (“Is this a belligerent occupation?”) true?

            The Israeli court accepts that it is.
            The Israeli govt accepts that it is.
            The IDF accepts that it is.

            There is simply no “dispute” that the West Bank is an Israeli-occupied territory.

            The consensus on that score is u.n.i.v.e.r.s.a.l.

            It is only the second proposition that is a matter of dispute between two (utterly-lopsided) sides.

            On one side is The Whole Damn World, which acknowledges that Geneva Convention IV applies to this particular belligerent occupation.

            On the other side is the Government of Israel, which claims that: Well, no, normally we would agree but not in this particular case.

            And in the middle is Israel’s Supreme Court, whose consistent “ruling” is this: we’re not telling.

            Not “Yes, it is”.
            Not “No, it isn’t”
            But “The issue is not before us.”

            But because Gustav and TT have conflated two different propositions into one they keep arguing that
            IF
            a) Geneva Convention IV isn’t applicable to this belligerent occupation
            THEN
            b) this can’t possibly be a belligerent occupation.

            It is a tautological argument, borne of profound ignorance of the issues and a mind-numbing stupidity.

            It is also an argument that they have already lost because – repeat after me, everyone! – Israel acknowledges that Gustav and TT are bullsh**ing themselves.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I noticed this trend on this site from the pro Saint-Palestinians.

            They try to pigeon hole you then they argue against the cartoon character of their creation which has nothing to do with reality. Then they feel vindicated by their own self righteousness.

            Good luck with that Bubbleboy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            *chortle*

            Pot, meet kettle.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            So Brian

            What do you want me to call you?

            a) A rubber stamp?

            Or:

            b) A cheer squad?

            Reply to Comment
    12. Brian

      I recommend this, the first of a multipart series on Jerusalem.

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.629025#

      East is east: A series of articles on the processes that led to the outbreak of violence in Jerusalem

      Article 1: The dialectic of Israelization — the violence broke out even as East and West Jerusalem were drawing closer to one another
      By Nir Hasson | Nov. 28, 2014 | 4:05 PM

      Reply to Comment
    13. Gustav

      BUBBLEBOY:”If you don’t understand what that means then here is an example:
      Egypt: Ouch! They started it!
      Israel: You were asking fer’ it!
      GCIV: We don’t care. This is war, and that means that *you* and *you* now have to conduct yourselves *thus* and *so*.”

      And they’re we have it. The above little paragraph, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the parallel universe of our favorite little Bubbleboy.

      A world of relativism where who starts what does not matter.

      A world where evil and good are relative terms.

      A world where what causes a problem or many problems need to be ignored.

      A world where stupidity trumps common sense.

      A world in which we ignore history or distort it.

      A world where if something is broken because of the bloody mindedness of those who cause the breakage, we restore the broken item without first making sure that the bloody minded ones can’t break the item again …

      … add water … Rinse … stir it and repeat the cycle endlessly. A recipe for repeating the same mistakes over, over and over …

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Oh-so-tedious.

        Gustav: “A world of relativism where who starts what does not matter.”

        No, actually, a set of laws that DOESN’T CARE who started a war, once two sides start to fight then these are the rules of conduct that have to be followed during the fighting.

        Gustav: “A world where evil and good are relative terms.”

        No, actually, a set of laws that DOESN’T CARE how much you demonize them, or vice versa, once the fighting starts the same rules of conduct apply to the both of you.

        Gustav: “A world where what causes a problem or many problems need to be ignored.”

        No, actually, a set of laws that DOESN’T CARE what “problems” you are seeking to solve by resorting to war, once the fighting starts you must abide by these rules of conduct.

        You just don’t get it, do you?

        International Humanitarian Laws like the Geneva Conventions quite deliberately DO NOT CARE what justifications you put forward for why *you* are righteous and *they* are heinous, or why *you* are good and *they* are evil.

        It DOESN’T CARE, all it cares about is that there is a whole lotta’ shootin’ ‘n’ shoutin’ ‘n’ death ‘n’ destruction going on, so let’s try an be a Wee Bit Civilized about it, shall we?

        Because the rulebook was thrown out the window between 1939-1945, and when the survivors crawled out of the rubble they all said “Whoah! Maybe we went a little crazy there!”

        So those survivors got together and came up with some new rules to reign in the craziness.

        That’s why those rules DON’T CARE about “They started it!” or “Our cause is noble, and theirs is evil!”.

        None of that helps to reign in the craziness, so the Geneva Conventions just DO NOT CARE about any of that shit.

        Understand it now, Gustav?

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “Oh-so-tedious.”

          Really? The feeling is mutual.

          GUSTAV: “A world of relativism where who starts what does not matter.”

          BUBBLEBOY:”No, actually, a set of laws that DOESN’T CARE who started a war, once two sides start to fight then these are the rules of conduct that have to be followed during the fighting.”

          Don’t forget to mention that while people like you meticulously scrutinize one side, US, you equally meticulously make sure to ignore what the other side, the Saint-Palestinians do.

          You people seem to forget that the rules of war apply either to BOTH sides or it applies to NEITHER side.

          GUSTAV: “A world where evil and good are relative terms.”

          BUBBLEBOY:”No, actually, a set of laws that DOESN’T CARE how much you demonize them, or vice versa, once the fighting starts the same rules of conduct apply to the both of you.”

          Yes, that’s what I said above. But your ilk seem to want to enforce the rules only against one side but not the other.

          GUSTAV: “A world where what causes a problem or many problems need to be ignored.”

          BUBBLEBOY:”No, actually, a set of laws that DOESN’T CARE what “problems” you are seeking to solve by resorting to war, once the fighting starts you must abide by these rules of conduct.”

          Fine words but in reality one never hears people like you pecking at the other side for ignoring the rules.

          BUBBLEBOY:You just don’t get it, do you?

          International Humanitarian Laws like the Geneva Conventions quite deliberately DO NOT CARE what justifications you put forward for why *you* are righteous and *they* are heinous, or why *you* are good and *they* are evil.”

          Actually it seems to be the other way around with people like you. According to you we are the ones who are heinous and they are the ones who are righteous. That’s why you always justify whatever the saint-Palestinians do to us while at the same time you try to brow beat us into submission with your LAWFARE.

          BUBBLEBOY:”It DOESN’T CARE, all it cares about is that there is a whole lotta’ shootin’ ‘n’ shoutin’ ‘n’ death ‘n’ destruction going on, so let’s try an be a Wee Bit Civilized about it, shall we?”

          Translate: in Bubbleboy-speak that means that we have to be civilized but they can rocket our civilians, murder the “settlers” who are just three teenagers hitching a ride and blow themselves up amongst our civilians just so they can take a few of us with them, repeated hundreds of times.

          BUBBLEBOY:”Because the rulebook was thrown out the window between 1939-1945, and when the survivors crawled out of the rubble they all said “Whoah! Maybe we went a little crazy there!”

          Well, I am glad you admit that other wars were dirty too. In fact, we, both us and the saint-Palestinians are amateurs compared to the big boys out there all of whom are preaching to us non-stop.

          BUBBLEBOY:”So those survivors got together and came up with some new rules to reign in the craziness.”

          And they want us to be the guinea pigs who implement their shiny rules but not the Saint-Palestinians.

          BUBBLEBOY:”That’s why those rules DON’T CARE about “They started it!” or “Our cause is noble, and theirs is evil!”.

          I have no problems with rules which actually apply to the situation and if both sides keep to the rules. I do however have problems with rules which don’t apply and if one side plays cricket while the other side plays using no rules and think that they can have a ‘free for all’ game.

          BUBBLEBOY:”None of that helps to reign in the craziness, so the Geneva Conventions just DO NOT CARE about any of that shit.”

          And you and your ilk too only care when you think you catch us out but you do NOT CARE what our adversaries do to us.

          BUBBLEBOY:”Understand it now, Gustav?”

          I always understood you and where you come from. You are the kind of person who preaches, “Do as I say, not as I do”.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You people seem to forget that the rules of war apply either to BOTH sides or it applies to NEITHER side.”

            That statement is quite untrue.

            The rules of war apply to both sides, and if one side violates those rules then… that side has committed a war crime.

            But the commission of a war crime by *that* side does not absolve *this* side from its obligations to abide by those laws.

            After all, violating a law doesn’t make the law “moot”, it merely makes the law-breaker a “criminal”.

            You really do have some very funny concepts, Gustav.

            It all appears to stem from your belief that Israel is above the law, because all your claims appear to be nothing more than a concocted justification for why Israel is “entitled” to place itself above the law.

            Apparently the author of this article has come across your type before i.e. the type who believes that Israel only need abide by int’l law…. when it is convenient.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “You people seem to forget that the rules of war apply either to BOTH sides or it applies to NEITHER side.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”That statement is quite untrue.

            The rules of war apply to both sides, and if one side violates those rules then… that side has committed a war crime.”

            I am glad you see it that way. Now tell me Bubbleboy: why do you always talk only about so called Israeli war crimes but never about the war crimes of the Saint-Palestinians?

            BUBBLEBOY:”But the commission of a war crime by *that* side does not absolve *this* side from its obligations to abide by those laws.

            After all, violating a law doesn’t make the law “moot”, it merely makes the law-breaker a “criminal”.

            Again, I am glad you see it that way but again, why do you only talk about Israeli crimes but not Saint-Palestinian crimes? Don’t you think the Saint Palestinians commit war crimes?

            BUBBLEBOY:”You really do have some very funny concepts, Gustav.”

            What funny concepts have I got BUBBLEBOY? The fact that I keep on reminding you of the war crimes of Saint-Palestinians?

            BUBBLEBOY:”It all appears to stem from your belief that Israel is above the law, because all your claims appear to be nothing more than a concocted justification for why Israel is “entitled” to place itself above the law.”

            Straw man. I never said that. I just questioned your LAWFARE techniques and challenged you about you being so quiet about the war crimes of your Saint-Palestinians.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Apparently the author of this article has come across your type before i.e. the type who believes that Israel only need abide by int’l law…. when it is convenient.”

            Like I said, even if true. We are in good company – like the whole of humanity. Show me a people who behave better than us in their wars. You won’t be able to show me too many if any …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Yes, that’s what I said above.”

            No, that’s not at all what you said.

            What you said is that there is a sliding scale of “goodness to evilness”, and where you sit on that scale therefore determines how int’l law applies to you.

            Israel is goodness-personified, ergo, Israel need only abide by Int’l law… when it is convenient.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Yes, that’s what I said above.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”No, that’s not at all what you said.”

            I didn’t? Now you know what I said better than I do? You are a funny argumentative ‘know-it-all’ little man BUBBLEBOY.

            BUBBLEBOY:”What you said is that there is a sliding scale of “goodness to evilness”, and where you sit on that scale therefore determines how int’l law applies to you.”

            Really? I said that? Either I am sleep talking, or you are imagining it all or most likely you are making it all up.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel is goodness-personified, ergo, Israel need only abide by Int’l law… when it is convenient.”

            Geez I hope not. Don’t you remember what I said sarcastically about us when you called us a light unto the nations? Go back and read it again you lazy bum!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Fine words but in reality one never hears people like you pecking at the other side for ignoring the rules.”

            I’m sorry, Gustav, I must have missed that important fact.

            So, please, show me where the PLO has imposed a belligerent occupation upon some Israeli territory.

            And, please, do show me when the PLO is colonizing Israeli territory, or where Palestinian military forces are rounding up Israeli citizens and putting them on trial before Palestinian Military Courts.

            I appear to have missed those Very Important Issues, so I’d be very grateful if you can show me where those events are taking place.

            After all, who knew that the Palestinians had established a tit-for-tat belligerent occupation.

            Only Gustav, apparently….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Fine words but in reality one never hears people like you pecking at the other side for ignoring the rules.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”I’m sorry, Gustav, I must have missed that important fact.

            So, please, show me where the PLO has imposed a belligerent occupation upon some Israeli territory.”

            My, my, my, Bubbleboy, how quick you are to forget your own preachings. Remember what you said? It doesn’t matter what the other side does. The only thing that matters that one should observe the rules. Do the Saint-Palestinians observe the rules, Bubleboy?

            BUBBLEBOY:”And, please, do show me when the PLO is colonizing Israeli territory, or where Palestinian military forces are rounding up Israeli citizens and putting them on trial before Palestinian Military Courts.

            I appear to have missed those Very Important Issues, so I’d be very grateful if you can show me where those events are taking place.”

            Naughty, naughty BUBBLEBOY …. you are forgetting your own preachings ….!!!

            BUBBLEBOY:”After all, who knew that the Palestinians had established a tit-for-tat belligerent occupation.”

            No, but they broke plenty of other rules for the last 100 years.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Translate: in Bubbleboy-speak that means that we have to be civilized but they can rocket our civilians,”

            Pardon me, Gustav, but how does that “justify” Israel violating the Geneva Conventions by colonizing an occupied territory?

            Gustav: “murder the “settlers” who are just three teenagers hitching a ride”

            See above: remind me again how that “justifies” Israel tossing Geneva Convention IV into the bin.

            Gustav: “and blow themselves up amongst our civilians just so they can take a few of us with them, repeated hundreds of times.”

            And, a hundred times more, how does ANY of those things “justify” Israel’s refusal to abide by an International Convention that it freely entered into.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Translate: in Bubbleboy-speak that means that we have to be civilized but they can rocket our civilians,”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Pardon me, Gustav, but how does that “justify” Israel violating the Geneva Conventions by colonizing an occupied territory?”

            And vice versa. Yet all you talk about is the “occupation”

            GUSTAV: “murder the “settlers” who are just three teenagers hitching a ride”

            BUBBLEBOY:”See above: remind me again how that “justifies” Israel tossing Geneva Convention IV into the bin.”

            Yes, see above, what I said …

            GUSTAV: “and blow themselves up amongst our civilians just so they can take a few of us with them, repeated hundreds of times.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”And, a hundred times more, how does ANY of those things “justify” Israel’s refusal to abide by an International Convention that it freely entered into.”

            And a hundred more times … how does the occupation justify those things?!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “And a hundred more times … how does the occupation justify those things?!”

            I’m sorry, Gustav, do you mind pointing to a single quote from me wherein I say that “the occupation justifies those things”?

            Anywhere in the talkback? Even once?

            Because if I haven’t once claimed that “the occupation justifies those things” then asking “And a hundred more times … how does the occupation justify those things?!”
            is a classic example of someone addressing a question to their own straw man.

            But not to me, because I have NEVER said that “the occupation justifies those things”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “And a hundred more times … how does the occupation justify those things?!”

            BUBBLEBOY;”I’m sorry, Gustav, do you mind pointing to a single quote from me wherein I say that “the occupation justifies those things”?

            Anywhere in the talkback? Even once?”

            When one endlessly accuses one party, us, about doing the wrong thing …

            ….but never once taking the time to point out the endless things which the other party (the Palestinian Arabs) do wrong, then that tells a story.

            And it’s worse than that Bubbleboy, not only do you not talk about the transgressions of Palestinian Arabs, but often you have been making excuses for them doing those things. You have done so on this very thread. Go look for it, don’t be a lazy bum. I can easily find such an exchange between us but it is a waste of my time.

            Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        It’s much clearer now the mistake you are making, Gustav. Domestic and international laws in modern, civilized societies are established precisely to cut through “Hatfield and McCoy”-style feuds that involve an endless “They started it!…No THEY started it!” series of justifications. Or “they are the bloody minded ones who caused the breakage!…No THEY are the bloody….” You are sneaking in a prejudiced assumption as fact, i.e., that the Palestinians “started it…are the bloody minded breakers….” A Palestinian ‘Gustav’ will argue precisely the opposite. And the argument will be endless (as endless as the debates over what Benny Morris wrote when, what he wrote later, what he thinks he can retract and what he cannot, what the documents show, what the oral history shows, etc., etc. This is why we have a society (domestic and international) of laws. This is what the Geneva Conventions were all about. You fall back each time on an emotivist argument that reveals in the end that you are siding with those in the Israeli government who want to pick and choose, at their convenience, which laws to follow, when the bedrock principle of a government of laws not men is that you cannot pick and choose.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Gee thanks you and Bubbleboy made it all clear now.

          First, it does not matter who starts wars because someone on their side can always claim that we started it.

          I do however have a problem with that though because I know that objectively speaking, one is a lie and the other is not a lie. At most one can argue that the side which starts the war had no choice. But that is a separate argument which in itself may or may not be true. Suffice it to say that someone always starts any war.

          The other problem that I have with not determining who starts a war is that if we just forget about it then we will also forget to stop the party which started it the next time they feel that they need to start another war.

          Now let’s move over to the rules which is another separate issue.

          I have two problems with the way you two want to talk about rules.

          First. You have a distinct tendency to mis-apply rules. Bubbleboy clearly showed this tendency several times on this thread.

          Second. You insist that one party must play by the rules while you give a free pass to the other party. According to you lot, they need not play by any rules because they are saintly underdogs.

          Mull on that, Brian.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “First, it does not matter who starts wars because someone on their side can always claim that we started it.”

            Nobody by you and your straw man are saying that.

            IHL doesn’t care about What Is This Fighting All About?

            That’s an interesting question in its own right, but it is a question that is asked AFTER the conflict ends.

            You know, in the final-status treaty negotiations, where issues of “war reparations”, “bounty”, “I accept blame”, etc., are all thrashed out.

            But that’s all “Jus ad Bellum”, and IHL simply doesn’t care about that, it’s concern is purely “Jus in Bello”.

            That’s not to say that the “justness” of your cause – or the “injustice” that you have suffered – doesn’t matter.

            It does, but the remedy for those injustices occur elsewhere, precisely because IHL doesn’t concern itself with that question.

            Honestly, do you know a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “First, it does not matter who starts wars because someone on their side can always claim that we started it.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Nobody by you and your straw man are saying that.”

            Hey Brian …. are you there …. Brian? Bubbleboy here thinks that you are a “nobody” and a “straw an” nobody at that … are you gonna take that laying down?

            BUBBLEBOY:”IHL doesn’t care about What Is This Fighting All About?

            That’s an interesting question in its own right, but it is a question that is asked AFTER the conflict ends.

            You know, in the final-status treaty negotiations, where issues of “war reparations”, “bounty”, “I accept blame”, etc., are all thrashed out.

            But that’s all “Jus ad Bellum”, and IHL simply doesn’t care about that, it’s concern is purely “Jus in Bello”.

            That’s not to say that the “justness” of your cause – or the “injustice” that you have suffered – doesn’t matter.

            It does, but the remedy for those injustices occur elsewhere, precisely because IHL doesn’t concern itself with that question.”

            Yeah, Right but you just went off on your little tangent and ignored what I said should happen DURING the conflict. To put it succinctly, either both sides observe the rules or both sides transgress it. Unless of course the war is between “angels” on one side and mortals who break the rules on the other side. Let me whisper something in your ear BUBBLEBOY. I know of no human war, ever. Ever in history in which anyone was/are angels.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Honestly, do you know a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g?”

            I know that you are an idiot!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Hey Brian …. are you there …. Brian? Bubbleboy here thinks that you are a “nobody” and a “straw an” nobody at that … are you gonna take that laying down?”

            No, actually, Brian and I are in accord on this matter.

            Note this bit:
            Brian: “This is why we have a society (domestic and international) of laws. This is what the Geneva Conventions were all about.”

            This. Is. What. The. Geneva. Conventions. Were. All. About.

            I agree with Brian, the Geneva Conventions are NOT about “who started it!”, not in the slightest.

            But note that Brian DOESN’T say that this means “who started it!” doesn’t matter, he merely says that this doesn’t matter to the GC’s.

            When it comes to a blanket claim that This Doesn’t Matter! that is you speaking, not him, not me.

            I have no problem with the concept of war reparations, which perforce require the acceptance from the side that is paying those reparations that A Wrong Has Been Done By Them.

            I doubt very much that Brian has a problem with that either.

            But that’s not an issue for International Humanitarian Law, which (deliberately) deliberates on a completely different issue.

            You appear to have only the most tenuous grasp of these issues, Gustav.

            Which is strange indeed, since you’ve been here long enough to have these issues spelt out to you in a fair bit of detail.

            Maybe if I draw it in crayon you might be able to comprehend….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “First, it does not matter who starts wars because someone on their side can always claim that we started it.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Nobody by you and your straw man are saying that.”

            GUSTAV:”Hey Brian, are you there? Bubbleboy just called you a nobody …

            BUBBLEBOY:”No, actually, Brian and I are in accord on this matter.”

            If Brian is in agreement with you then how come he tried to make this point, Bubbleboy….?

            BRIAN:”You are sneaking in a prejudiced assumption as fact, i.e., that the Palestinians “started it…are the bloody minded breakers….” A Palestinian ‘Gustav’ will argue precisely the opposite.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “If Brian is in agreement with you then how come he tried to make this point, Bubbleboy….?”

            Oh, fer’ cryin’ out loud, read his post again, dude.

            He is making this point: you keep insisting on inserting an EMOTIVE argument ***into*** International Humanitarian Law, and every time you do that you are simply wasting your time.

            I’ve been saying that over and over and over again to you, and it doesn’t get through.

            And it still doesn’t get through even when Brian tells you exactly the same thing i.e. shouting “But! But! THEY started it, not me!!!!” is of no interest whatsoever to International Humanitarian Law.

            It Doesn’t F**king Care Who Started The Conflict, It Only Cares About How You Conduct Yourself DURING That Conflict.

            If you are looking for your pound of flesh then DON’T look to IHL to supply it.

            It won’t. It doesn’t care.

            You have to look elsewhere for that remedy, and how you look for it is by arguing for war reparations against Those That Done Did Me Wrong!

            This really is just bouncing right off your skull, isn’t it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            I think YR makes the correct distinction between Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum. And I think that YR is correct that nothing I wrote is in contradiction to that distinction.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yet you said what you said Brian. You wanna take it back now? That’s OK with me. But you said it. It is a matter of public record for anyone who wants to see it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            No I don’t want to take back a word of it. Everything I wrote is in accord with the concept of not contaminating Jus in Bello with Jus ad Bellum.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You don’t wanna take anything back, Brian dear? Then don’t. But you DID say this. Don’t deny it.

            BRIAN:”You are sneaking in a prejudiced assumption as fact, i.e., that the Palestinians “started it…are the bloody minded breakers….” A Palestinian ‘Gustav’ will argue precisely the opposite”

            BUBBLEBOY tried to call the above MY straw man. But you are the one who said it. That is all that I am saying.

            The rest is just Bubbleboy desperately trying to do a double shuffle and blame me for your comment.

            He is a skillfful obfuscator who created a storm in a tea cup in this case by even arguing about this trivia. Frankly, about this, I’ll just let him go on arguing with himself. And you too can rubber stamp what he says Brian, if it gives you joy. After all, isn’t that why you are here? To mindlessly endorse anything that Israel bashers say on this site? Enjoy …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Yet you said what you said Brian.”

            Indeed he did, and it’s there for all to see.

            And what he said does not contradict what I have been saying.

            Gustav: “You wanna take it back now?”

            No, nowhere does Brian retract his words.

            What he does say is that **your** commentary on the meaning of his words is incorrect.

            Gustav: “That’s OK with me. But you said it.”

            Indeed, he said what he said.

            Indeed, you then put your spin on his words.

            And… Brian has just told you that the spin that *you* placed on *his* words are in error.

            He should know. Indeed, he is the *only* person who *can* know that.

            Gustav: “It is a matter of public record for anyone who wants to see it.”

            I.n.d.e.e.d.

            And there it is, and Brian has just told you what those words mean.

            Queue the Gustav: No! No! I know better!

            Err, actually, Brian is the guy who is entitled to place a commentary upon his words.

            Not you. Him.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            This really is farcical, in that oh-so-hasbarah kinda’ way.

            Brian: [blah] [blah] [blah]

            You: Brian has claimed *this*
            Me: No, that’s not the correct interpretation of what he said.

            You: Yes it is!
            Me: No, it isn’t.

            You: Yes it is!
            Me: No, it isn’t.

            You: Yes it is!
            Brian: No, it isn’t. YR is right, that’s not what I was saying.

            You: Yes it is!

            !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            You’re not right in the head, you know that?

            If there is a disagreement regarding what Brian *meant* then the authoritative source is Brian himself.

            Not you.
            Not me.

            He Should Know, and he has just said that you verballed him.

            That’s mighty Shin Bet of you, Gustav.

            What next? Are you now going to waterboard Brian until his changes his testimony?

            You’ve tried very, very hard to put words in Brian’s mouth, and he’s now called you on it.

            Best not to go on with this, lest you look more foolish than you already do.

            Which is hard to believe, but I suppose that’s possible.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Oh, fer’ cryin’ out loud….

            …..you keep insisting on inserting an EMOTIVE argument ***into*** International Humanitarian Law,”

            You sound emotive enough yourself Bubbleboy …

            But let’s correct what you say. You are NOT really talking about real laws. You are talking about YOUR INTERPRETATION of laws.

            Consider the sequence of events:

            1. A foreign invader (Jordan) illegally drove ALL the Jews out of East Jerusalem from their homes.

            2. Nineteen years later, in 1967, Israel got rid of the foreign invader in a war of self defense.

            There is no REAL law in the world which would prevent Israel from allowing Jews returning to places where Jews lived continuously for millenia.

            Anyone who tries to quote such a law is just inventing their own law with which they want to keep Jews out of our rightful homes by ising LAWFARE and trying to accomplish what the Arabs tried to do illegally through WARFARE.
            One illegal act by the Arabs cannot be turned into a justification to keep Jews out of their homes and to pretend that it is legal to do so!

            You think I am wrong? Then point at a legal ruling which actually says so. The closest you will come to is the ruling of the ICJ on the security fence. But that was NOT a ruling about what we are talking about. You are just trying to use it as an implication but it isn’t a valid implication. Nor has it been verified in reality that it really follows!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “There is no REAL law in the world which would prevent Israel from allowing Jews returning to places where Jews lived continuously for millennia”

            Oh, yes, the “red herring” argument. It’s goes so nicely on the shelf alongside Gustav’s polemics, straw men, non-sequiturs, and outright lies.

            Here is a person. Let’s call him “Moshe”. He is Jewish. He is an Israeli citizen.

            Here is an occupied territory. Let’s call it “East Jerusalem”.

            Here is the occupying power. Let’s call it “Israel”.

            Now, “Israel” wants to take “Moshe” and transfer him to “East Jerusalem”.

            Q: Is that legal?
            A: No. Moshe is an Israeli, and Israeli citizens are prohibited from transferring into an Israeli-occupied territory.

            Q: BUT ISN’T HE JEWISH?
            A: Irrelevant. Moshe is an Israeli, and the prohibition applies to all Israelis regardless of ethnicity.

            Q: BUT HAVEN’T JEWS HAVE ALWAYS LIVED THERE?
            A: Irrelevant. For as long as Israel is the occupier then the transfer of Israelis is prohibited regardless of their ethnicity.

            Q: BUT, BUT, JEW! ANTI-SEMITISM! BALFOUR DECLARATION! CLOSE SETTLEMENT! CHOSEN PEOPLE! UNFAIR! UNKIND! THEY HATE US! THEY ATTACK US WITH ROCKETS! WE ONLY WANT PEACE!
            A: All irrelevant. The occupying power is prohibited from transferring its citizens into occupied territory.

            And regardless of whatever else Moshe might be (Goodly, Peaceable, Chosen, Downtrodden, Refugee, Jewish, Whatever) one inescapable attribute that Moshe possesses is that he is “an Israeli”.

            That ONE attribute is what prohibits *his* transfer into *that* territory, and the only way to end that prohibition is to END THIS OCCUPATION.

            Why? Because an occupying power derives its authority FROM International Humanitarian Law, and so if IHL says that this is prohibited (and it does) then The Occupying Power Is Prohibited From Doing That.

            Pretty simple, really.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “There is no REAL law in the world which would prevent Israel from allowing Jews returning to places where Jews lived continuously for millennia”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Oh, yes, the “red herring” argument. It’s goes so nicely on the shelf alongside Gustav’s polemics, straw men, non-sequiturs, and outright lies.

            Here is a person. Let’s call him “Moshe”. He is Jewish. He is an Israeli citizen.

            …..

            Pretty simple, really.”

            Red Herring argument? Nah … YOU are the only one with the red herring arguments. You are desperately trying to explain why your OPINIONS and silly scenarios and other assorted jumbo jumbo is divinely inspired. You have not convinced me …

            … nor did I convince you with my counter arguments which I am just as adamant about as you are about your silly OPINIONS.

            … so what we have here is an impasse. Such impasses are not uncommon between two parties who have legal claims. You know how they get sorted out? Here is how …

            1. Either by reaching consensus …

            Or

            2. In a court of law by a suitably qualified judge/es

            … I think that you will agree with me that 1) ain’t gonna happen between us. So the only avenue left to you is 2). …. well? Have you such a ruling? …. No? … Then you have two choices again …

            A. Keep on barking …

            Or

            B. Agree to disagree …

            Which will it be BUBBLEBOY? If it is A) I will stay the distance. Trust me. You won’t beat me by attempting the equivalent of a filibuster. Why? Because I feel just as strongly about this subject as you seem to feel about it. Although, for the life of me, I don’t know why someone from down under wouldn’t just concentrate on your problems rather than ours. Unless of course you are someone from the Middle East living over there. That’s the only thing which would justify the kind of bias and zealotry which you display.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Such impasses are not uncommon between two parties who have legal claims. You know how they get sorted out? Here is how …
            1. Either by reaching consensus …
            Or
            2. In a court of law by a suitably qualified judge/es”

            Sigh.

            Once again Gustav displays his deliberate cluelessness about remedies for violations of Int’l Law.

            In international law there is, of course, a third way that such an “impasse” can be resolved.

            It’s called “intervention”.

            International law is The Law Between Nations, and therefore all nations have a vested interest in prevents those laws from being trashed.

            Sometimes they turn away.
            Sometimes they Hurrumph! Hurrumph!
            Sometimes they Step In And Sort The Mess Out.

            You’ve actually spent the last two days pointing me towards a Very Good Example of how this will work.

            It is the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion regarding the legality of the separation wall.

            The UNGA grew sick and tired of Hurrumph! Hurrumph! Hurrumaphing! and so they took the step of asking the ICJ if Israel’s actions are legal.

            The ICJ considered that question and gave its opinion: Israel’s actions violate int’l law AND int’l law makes it incumbent upon all other states Not To Give Assistance To Those Illegal Acts.

            Now the ICJ can’t **make** any state accept either of those two propositions, sure, it can’t.

            But that opinion remains on the books and therefore represents a club that ANY state can pick up to justify imposing Boycotts, Sanctions and Divestments on Israel.

            It is inevitable that the more Israel digs in its heels the more those other states will dust off that AO and shout “By Jove! These bally judges are right! Divest! Divest, I tell you!”.

            That’s Israel’s future, Gustav.

            Not “consensus”
            Not “a court of law”

            It’ll be BDS. On steroids.

            Don’t believe me? Go ask an afrikaaner.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            In international law there is, of course, a third way that such an “impasse” can be resolved.

            It’s called “intervention”.

            International law is The Law Between Nations, and therefore all nations have a vested interest in prevents those laws from being trashed.

            Sometimes they turn away.
            Sometimes they Hurrumph! Hurrumph!
            Sometimes they Step In And Sort The Mess Out.

            You’ve actually spent the last two days pointing me towards a Very Good Example of how this will work.

            It is the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion regarding the legality of the separation wall.

            The UNGA grew sick and tired of Hurrumph! Hurrumph! Hurrumaphing! and so they took the step of asking the ICJ if Israel’s actions are legal.

            The ICJ considered that question and gave its opinion: Israel’s actions violate int’l law AND int’l law makes it incumbent upon all other states Not To Give Assistance To Those Illegal Acts.

            Now the ICJ can’t **make** any state accept either of those two propositions, sure, it can’t.

            But that opinion remains on the books and therefore represents a club that ANY state can pick up to justify imposing Boycotts, Sanctions and Divestments on Israel.

            It is inevitable that the more Israel digs in its heels the more those other states will dust off that AO and shout “By Jove! These bally judges are right! Divest! Divest, I tell you!”.

            That’s Israel’s future, Gustav.

            Not “consensus”
            Not “a court of law”

            It’ll be BDS. On steroids.

            Don’t believe me? Go ask an afrikaaner.

            Reply to Comment
    14. Yeah, right

      Gustav: “And they want us to be the guinea pigs who implement their shiny rules but not the Saint-Palestinians.”

      And that must be the most moronic example of the “Oy Vey! We are the victim! Always the victim!” card that I have seen in a long, long time.

      Remind me again, Gustav: who is occupying whom?

      The Israelis and the Palestinians have managed the ever-tricky “Let’s Occupy Each Other” trick, have they?

      Or is it the case that One Side is occupying The Other Side and, furthermore, is flat-out refusing to concede that it will ever end that endless occupation.

      Q: Which side?
      A: Why, according to Gustav it’s the side that is the true victim here.

      You know, the occupier, not the occupied.

      Cry. Me. A. River.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        GUSTAV: “And they want us to be the guinea pigs who implement their shiny rules but not the Saint-Palestinians.”

        BUBBLEBOY:”And that must be the most moronic example of the “Oy Vey! We are the victim! Always the victim!” card that I have seen in a long, long time.”

        Claiming that we are to be the guinea pigs is victihood? Nah!

        BUBBLEBOY:”Remind me again, Gustav: who is occupying whom?”

        Now, bringing that up, all the time is playing the victim card. Yes, oy vey …

        BUBBLEBOY:”The Israelis and the Palestinians have managed the ever-tricky “Let’s Occupy Each Other” trick, have they?

        Or is it the case that One Side is occupying The Other Side and, furthermore, is flat-out refusing to concede that it will ever end that endless occupation.”

        Yes, a clear case of stop “victimizing us, we are the Saint-Palestinians” who are only responding to what evil Israel does to us”.

        BUBBLEBOY:Q: Which side?
        A: Why, according to Gustav it’s the side that is the true victim here.

        You know, the occupier, not the occupied.”

        Ahhhh but Bubbleboy, how quick you are to forget the very words which you preach. “It doesn’t matter who does what to whom” remember? You still gotta play by the rules. What a hypocrite you are.

        “Cry. Me. A. River.”

        I am not crying. The only sobbing, uncontrollable sobbing, I am hearing is coming from your direction.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Gustav: “Claiming that we are to be the guinea pigs is victihood? Nah!”

          Riiiiiight.

          The Geneva Conventions date from 1949.

          So – obviously! – the very first time that those conventions are ever applied to any conflict is when Israel is one of the participants.

          Every other time there is conflict the ICRC has a look and says “Oh, no Israelis? OK, don’t mind us, do carry on…”

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “GUSTAV: “Claiming that we are to be the guinea pigs is victihood? Nah!”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Riiiiiight.

            The Geneva Conventions date from 1949.

            So – obviously! – the very first time that those conventions are ever applied to any conflict is when Israel is one of the participants.”

            Yes, and the other participants are …..?????

            “Every other time there is conflict the ICRC has a look and says “Oh, no Israelis? OK, don’t mind us, do carry on…”

            Since 1949 there were plenty of conflicts not involving Israel where the human rights transgressions were at least as severe and in many cases were much more severe than the transgressions committed by BOTH sides in our conflict. Some of thos conflicts involved NATO, Turkey, various Arab States, Russia and many others. Yet the loudest noise is always about what Israel does or does not do.

            Take people like you for instance, Bubbleboy. You are preoccupied with us on this forum on a full time basis. And you preach ONLY about Israel. Nothing about the Saint-Palestinians or anyone else. You have dedicated your entire life to try to improve us and us alone as human beings. It seems to be an obsession with you. Haven’t you got anything else to do? How about trying to improve the lot of the Aborigines? Shouldn’t you be more concerned about that? Where did you say you live again? Anyone would think you are a Lebanese or something.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Since 1949 there were plenty of conflicts not involving Israel where the human rights transgressions were at least as severe and in many cases were much more severe than the transgressions committed by BOTH sides in our conflict. Some of thos conflicts involved NATO, Turkey, various Arab States, Russia and many others. Yet the loudest noise is always about what Israel does or does not do”

            Maybe that’s because:
            a) Those other countries do not dispute the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the conflicts in which they engage, and
            b) None of those other countries indulge in colonial expansionism in direct violation of Article 49.

            Only Israel claims that exceptionalism.

            Yeah, it must be anti-Semitism to point that out….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Since 1949 there were plenty of conflicts not involving Israel where the human rights transgressions were at least as severe and in many cases were much more severe than the transgressions committed by BOTH sides in our conflict. Some of those conflicts involved NATO, Turkey, various Arab States, Russia and many others. Yet the loudest noise is always about what Israel does or does not do”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Maybe that’s because:
            a) Those other countries do not dispute the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the conflicts in which they engage, and
            b) None of those other countries indulge in colonial expansionism in direct violation of Article 49.

            Only Israel claims that exceptionalism.”

            Maybe. But then again their transgressions may be equally bad or worse? Or are you one of those idiots who claims that Israel is the root of all the world’s problems?

            BUBBLEBOY:”Yeah, it must be anti-Semitism to point that out….”

            Naaaaaah. Heaven forbid …. It couldn’t possibly be antiSemitism. I mean, who would even contemplate such a possibility? Only you Bubleboy, could stoop to such depths of depravity. I couldn’t possibly contemplate antiSemitism, Bubbleboy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah. right

            Gustav: “Maybe. But then again their transgressions may be equally bad or worse?”

            I’m pointing out that any those transgressions are “different”, and that “difference” explains your (unwarranted) feeling of persecution.

            Israel is the ONLY country that insists that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to its occupations, and therefore is the ONLY country that insists that it is still entitled to engage in colonial expansionism.

            It can’t claim exceptionalism AND then complain that criticism of its behaviour is exceptional.

            Its own claims to exceptionalism guarantees that result, Gustav.

            Gustav: “Or are you one of those idiots who claims that Israel is the root of all the world’s problems?”

            Straw man alert!
            Straw man alert!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”I’m pointing out that any those transgressions are “different”, and that “difference” explains your (unwarranted) feeling of persecution.”

            Feelings of persecution? LOL! Nah, I have been told on good authority that everyone except the Saint-Palestinians love us.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel is the ONLY country that insists that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to its occupations, and therefore is the ONLY country that insists that it is still entitled to engage in colonial expansionism.”

            No, Israel insists that it is entitled to let Jewish Palestinians to return to their old homes from where Arabs unlawfully kicked them out.

            It also insists that since Jerusalem was always designated to be both Jewish and Arab, that therefore other Jews can move into old Jewish neighborhoods.

            You do know Bubbleboy that East Jerusalem was never exclusively Arab, don’t you? And certainly an illegal invasion and occupation by Jordan, never legitimately converted East Jerusalem to an exclusively Arab dwelling.

            BUBBLEBOY:”It can’t claim exceptionalism AND then complain that criticism of its behaviour is exceptional.”

            We are claiming the opposite of exceptionalism Bubbleboy. We refuse to be treated worse than anyone else is treated.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Its own claims to exceptionalism guarantees that result, Gustav.”

            What result might that be?

            GUSTAV: “Or are you one of those idiots who claims that Israel is the root of all the world’s problems?”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Straw man alert!
            Straw man alert!”

            Oh goodie Bubbleboy. Maybe I had you figured out wrong? You don’t think that we are the root of all evil … what a relief … and you had me so worried because I thought you did.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “I have been told on good authority that everyone except the Saint-Palestinians love us.”

            Ah, yes, those voices in your head again, heh, Gustav?

            Methinks you had best put the tinfoil hat back on, and pronto.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “I have been told on good authority that everyone except the Saint-Palestinians love us.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Ah, yes, those voices in your head again, heh, Gustav?”

            Aw shucks bubbleboy, you mean you don’t love us? We are devastated …. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Aw shucks bubbleboy, you mean you don’t love us?”

            If by “us” you mean “Jews” then I have a lot of time for “you”.

            But if by “us” you mean “Zionists” then, heck, who could possibly love a bunch of arrogant land-snatching, boot-stomping, law-breaking, carpet-bagging throwbacks from the 19th Century Age Of Colonialism?

            And that’s probably their less objectionable characteristics…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “No, Israel insists that it is entitled to let Jewish Palestinians to return to their old homes from where Arabs unlawfully kicked them out.”

            That has always been Gustav’s argument i.e. there is nothing prohibiting Israel letting the Jewish refugees from 1947-49 return to their homes in East Jerusalem.

            (As a point of law that is incorrect, since Article 49 does indeed prohibit their “return” While Israel Remains The Occupying Power. Which wouldn’t normally be a problem since – du’oh! – an occupation is only intended to be temporary. It only becomes an intractable problem when the occupier fully intends the occupation to be endless.)

            But that’s a digression. The point *here* is that the above has been Gustav’s long-standing justification for why Israel is “allowed” to colonize East Jerusalem.

            Gustav: “It also insists that since Jerusalem was always designated to be both Jewish and Arab, that therefore other Jews can move into old Jewish neighborhoods.”

            Whoah! Where’d that just come from?!?!?!?

            It appears that Gustav had to pluck that from his back-passage, once it was pointed out to him that his original argument can’t possibly account for all 350,000 Israeli colonists inside East Jerusalem.

            As arguments go it has “emotive” written all over it. Very emotive indeed.

            But as a LEGAL argument it fails a critical test i.e. where did Israel obtain the “authority” to act as the real-estate agent for that policy?

            And the answer is: nowhere.

            Israel is merely the occupying power, and this is a truism: the authority of the occupying power derives from international humanitarian law.

            Therefore Israel (“Israel, the occupying power”) has to point to an article of IHL that gives it the authority to carry out Gustav’s stated real-estate policy of “since Jerusalem was always designated to be both Jewish and Arab, therefore other Jews can move into old Jewish neighborhoods.”

            No such article exists.

            QED: Israel does not possess the legal authority to establish Gustav’s real-estate policy of “calling substitutes off the bench”.

            Gustav appears to have confused his baseball rules with his International Humanitarian Laws.

            No surprises there, though Gustav will no doubt pluck something else from his backside.

            Why not peruse the Laws of Cricket, or go through the governing rules of the Royal And Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews?

            I’m sure there’ll be something in either that you can use to “justify” Israel’s grave violation of IHL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “No, Israel insists that it is entitled to let Jewish Palestinians to return to their old homes from where Arabs unlawfully kicked them out.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”That has always been Gustav’s argument i.e. there is nothing prohibiting Israel letting the Jewish refugees from 1947-49 return to their homes in East Jerusalem.

            (As a point of law that is incorrect, since Article 49 does indeed prohibit their “return”

            Only in YOUR opinion Bubbleboy. A minor detail says that your assertion is just that: an ASSEERTION. Remember? The onus is on the accuser to get a legally binding verdict. Have you done that yet? NO, of course NOT!

            BUBBLEBOY:”While Israel Remains The Occupying Power … Followed by more BS without a legally binding verdict to back him up …

            BUBBLEBOY:”But that’s a digression. The point *here* is that the above has been Gustav’s long-standing justification for why Israel is “allowed” to colonize East Jerusalem.”

            And … ?

            GUSTAV: “It also insists that since Jerusalem was always designated to be both Jewish and Arab, that therefore other Jews can move into old Jewish neighborhoods.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Whoah! Where’d that just come from?!?!?!?”

            Why do you act surprised? Tell me which bit of the above was not true before 1948, before the illegal occupation by Jordan of East Jerusalem?

            BUBBLEBOY:”It appears that Gustav had to pluck that from his back-passage, once it was pointed out to him that his original argument can’t possibly account for all 350,000 Israeli colonists inside East Jerusalem.”

            Again … tell me … which law prohibited Palestinian Jews … ANY Palestinian Jews from living in East Jerusalem prior to the illegal invasion and conquest of East Jerusalem in 1948, by the Jordanians?

            BUBBLEBOY:”As arguments go it has “emotive” written all over it. Very emotive indeed.”

            True. But since when are arguments invalid just because they are emotive?

            BUBBLEBOY:But as a LEGAL argument it fails a critical test i.e. where did Israel obtain the “authority” to act as the real-estate agent for that policy?”

            Only in your opinion and the opinions of other emotive supporters of Palestinian Arabs. But where is the legally binding court ruling which backs up your opinions? We have equally adamant opinions which disagrees with YOUR claims.

            So the remedy should have been to put our differences to a test in a court of law. This has not been done for 47 years. Why not, I ask? Perhaps you ain’t so confident after all that your claims would stand up to proper and rigorously contested legal scrutiny.

            Yes, Bubbleboy? Go on admit it. You know it is so …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel is merely the occupying power, and this is a truism: the authority of the occupying power derives from international humanitarian law.”

            I object your honor … the witness is trying to lead the Jury. It is only his opinion. Not a fact!

            BUBBLEBOY:”Therefore Israel (“Israel, the occupying power”) has to point to an article of IHL that gives it the authority to carry out Gustav’s stated real-estate policy of “since Jerusalem was always designated to be both Jewish and Arab, therefore other Jews can move into old Jewish neighborhoods.”

            Nope. Israel has no such onus on it. The onus is on those who accuse Israel of doing wrong, to prove their case in a proper court of law which can issue a legally binding verdict. Till then, Israel can allow it’s citizens, Jewish and Arab citizens, to live in places where they were always allowed to live before the invasion of the foreign invader (Jordan).

            BUBBLEBOY:”No such article exists.”

            Read my above. The onus is not on Israel. The onus is on Israel’s accusers.

            BUBBLEBOY “QED: Israel does not possess the legal authority to establish Gustav’s real-estate policy of “calling substitutes off the bench”.

            “QED” only in your feverish biased imagination. You proved nothing. The only thing that you proved is that you can repeat yourself endlessly. But we all know that repetition is not proof. Even Goebbles knew it and he admitted that it was just a propaganda tool.

            The rest of Bubbleboy’s BS is not worth commenting on. It is just more of his school boyish theatrics which in his imagination makes him look cool. But of course it just makes him look like another loud mouth who talks a lot but has nothing to say …

            Reply to Comment
    15. Yeah, right

      Gustav: “No, Israel insists that it is entitled to let Jewish Palestinians to return to their old homes from where Arabs unlawfully kicked them out.”

      No, Israel insists that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to its belligerent occupation of this territory.

      You’ve actually already said that, Gustav, so why are you now denying it?

      And, no, Israel insists that it has a “right” to colonize this occupied territory.

      It certainly does NOT insist that the criteria for being a colonist is “you must have lived there between 1947-49”.

      Your claim that as the criteria that Israel uses is patently untrue, and you know it.

      Here is the territory. It’s occupied.

      Here are the colonies. They’re Israeli.

      Gustav: Lies! All lies!

      Pig’s f**king arse, sunshine.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        GUSTAV: “No, Israel insists that it is entitled to let Jewish Palestinians to return to their old homes from where Arabs unlawfully kicked them out.”

        BUBBLEBOY:”No, Israel insists that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to its belligerent occupation of this territory.

        You’ve actually already said that, Gustav, so why are you now denying it?”

        I said that when it comes to enforcing an illegal act of the Arabs which took place in 1948, the expulsion of East Jerusalem’s Jews from their homes, you cannot use LAWFARE to make that situation permanent. The Geneva Conventions, relating to population transfer, don’t apply to this case. Nor is there a legal ruling that you can point to which says so.

        The closest you will come to a legal ruling is the ICJ’s ruling on the security fence but you cannot use that as an implication about Jews being allowed to return to places which were never exclusively Arab and which had a Jewish population for Millenia.

        Think about it this way, Bubbleboy. If someone steals your car and sells it, but your car is found, you are still the legal owner of that car and it will be returned to you.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Gustav: “The Geneva Conventions, relating to population transfer, don’t apply to this case. Nor is there a legal ruling that you can point to which says so.”

          That statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about int’l law.

          Here is a treaty.
          Here is a pen.
          Here is the representative of Israel using that pen to sign this treaty.

          Oh, look, there is Israel violating Article 49 of that treaty.

          Queue the Gustav-man: No! Not true! You can’t point to any “legal ruling” to back up that claim!

          Ahem. This is international law we are talking about. The remedy for violations of int’l law are seldom found in a courtroom.

          Here is an article of int’l law.
          Here is the country violating it.

          Q: Do other countries “take them to court” over those violations?
          A: Almost never.

          They use a sliding scale of remedies starting with “the mild rebuke”, through to “carpeting the ambassador” up through “breaking off relations” all the way to “sanctions and boycott” and onto the ultimate: “BANG!, you’re dead”.

          Soooooo, what is the universal consensus regarding the applicability of Geneva Convention IV?

          The universal consensus is that GCIV is applicable to this belligerent occupation.

          Sooooo, what is the universal consensus regarding these “Jewish settlements”?

          The universal consensus is that these are “Israeli colonies”, and as such are a grave violation of Article 49 of GCIV.

          Soooooo, what is the universal consensus regarding the appropriate response to that grave violation of int’l humanitarian law.

          There isn’t any consensus.

          The non-aligned world would like to impose harsh pressure on Israel, the EU can’t make up its mind about what it wants to do, whhile the USA does: it wants to slap Netanyahu’s wrist while simultaneously fellating him.

          No wonder Bibi can’t help smirking.

          The problem for Israel is that everyone (including that old gentleman delivering that blow-job) is telling Israel that this can’t go on.

          And it can’t.

          Israel’s policies can not continue WITHOUT a hardening of resolve, precisely because the longer it goes on the more difficult it is to pretend that it is anything other than what it so plainly is i.e. a grave violation of the laws of war.

          You know: A War Crime.

          I know that **YOU** will keep insisting that we all play “let’s pretend!” up unto the bitter end.

          Sure, you will, because that’s all you’ve got by way of argument.

          But every day, in every way, your argument convinces fewer and fewer people.

          Heck, Gustav, it has **already** gotten to the stage where the only people who are still listening are those who are **already** rusted-on anyway.

          They already have no choice but to play pretendies, so you could tell them that Up is Down, the Sky is Green and the Grass is Blue, and they’ll still nod sagely and agree with you.

          But nobody who can think for themselves is the least bit convinced by your nonsense.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “The Geneva Conventions, relating to population transfer, don’t apply to this case. Nor is there a legal ruling that you can point to which says so.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”That statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about int’l law.”

            More BS and amateur, schoolboy theatrics by our intrepid Bubbleboy but no substance…

            He pustures and asserts his claims, armed with nothing but his opinion and the opinions of equally politicized people and organizations like himself.

            There are however, plenty of other respected and highly qualified people who disagree with those opinions.

            So, again, Bubbleboy, the floor is yours. Please produce hard evidence (like a legally binding court ruling) to backup your assertions, NOT just fluffy and politically biased opinions.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            sigh. Again with the polemics.

            Apparently that is Gustav’s Order Of The Day.

            I suppose if you’ve got nothing else to play then you might as well play it…..

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Polemics? Moi …?

            But you are as innocent as a lamb, right?

            The pot calling the Kettle, right?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “The pot calling the Kettle, right?”

            Owwww, Gustav throws down the challenge.

            Fine, I accept.

            Gustav: “More BS and amateur, schoolboy theatrics by our intrepid Bubbleboy but no substance…”

            That’s a polemic.

            Gustav: “He pustures and asserts his claims, armed with nothing but his opinion and the opinions of equally politicized people and organizations like himself.”

            That’s also a polemic.

            Gustav: “There are however, plenty of other respected and highly qualified people who disagree with those opinions.”

            Again with the polemics.

            Compare and contrast with the post that preceded it…..

            Me: “Ahem. This is international law we are talking about. The remedy for violations of int’l law are seldom found in a courtroom.”

            That’s definitely not a polemic, precisely because it contains a proposition that is arguable for/again.

            Me: “Q: Do other countries “take them to court” over those violations? A: Almost never.”

            A statement that might be right, might be wrong, but either way is most definitely not a polemic.

            Me: “They use a sliding scale of remedies starting with “the mild rebuke”, through to “carpeting the ambassador” up through “breaking off relations” all the way to “sanctions and boycott” and onto the ultimate: “BANG!, you’re dead”.”

            Again, you might agree with that statement, or you might disagree, but it is definitely the case that the basic proposition is open to argument for/against. So, again, not a polemic.

            I could go on, but there is really no need.

            My post consisted of a series of propositions each of which might be right – or may be wrong – but either way they can definitely be argued for/against.

            And IN REPLY Gustav reeled off sentence after sentence that contained no arguable propositions whatsoever.

            A polemic.
            All of it.
            Top to bottom.
            Left to right.

            Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Gustav: “The closest you will come to a legal ruling is the ICJ’s ruling on the security fence but you cannot use that as an implication about Jews being allowed to return to places which were never exclusively Arab and which had a Jewish population for Millenia.”

          Am I the only person to notice that Gustav just changed his argument?

          Up until this post his argument had been this:
          “Israeli Jews and their families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and who returned there after 1967 are colonists. Yeah, Right.”

          Note that point: Gustav justified Israel’s policies by claiming that is it simply allowing the “return” of those refugees who were ejected from the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem in 1947-49.

          But look at him now:
          “Jews being allowed to return to places which were never exclusively Arab and which had a Jewish population for Millenia”

          Whoah, Nessie!!

          Gustav has just morphed into a baseball coach. Obviously so, because he just insisted he has a “right” to substitute some pinch-hitters from the bench.

          The “logic” appears to be this: Israel is “entitled” to colonize East Jerusalem with as many Israelis as it wants, provided only that *these* Israeli colonists share the same tribal affiliation as *those* unfortunate Jewish refugees from 1947-49.

          Hello….. Earth to Gustav, Earth to Gustav.

          Your argument makes no sense whatsoever: *these* colonists have nothing to do with *those* refugees from 1947-49 except this: “Oh, you are Jewish? Funny that, so am I!”.

          I think you’ll find that int’l human rights law doesn’t find much room for the concept of “bringing on substitutes from the bench”.

          That’s a baseball rule, and it has no place in international law.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Am I the only person to notice that Gustav just changed his argument?”

            Poor old Bubbleboy he is having a field day again with his school boyish theatrics …

            Why? Because I started out by trying to prove to him something which even idiots like him should grasp. That if a foreign invader illegally kicks out a people from their homes but 19 years later those people win back their homes in a defensive war, even an idiot would not object to those people returning to their homes.

            But alas, our Bubbleboy, didn’t even make the grade of an idiot. He objected on the ground that in his (and the opinions of other politicised idiots) opinion/s, the law forbids the return of even those Jewish people to their homes.

            So yes, after such idiocy, I challenged him to produce the legally binding ruling which backs up his silly opinion. And yes, now I extend that challenge about all the Jews of Palestine (Israelis). I want our opinionated Bubbleboy to show me a legally binding ruling which tells us that Israeli Jews are barred from places which 19 years before was open to them and which has not become part of The proposed Palestinian state because a sovereign Arab state of Palestine has never existed. Never in the history of mankind.

            Yes, realistically the borders of Palestine are likely to go along the 1967 boundaries but they will not be THE 1967 boundaries. And because of that and because Arab Palestine never existed, till it comes into existence, both Jews and Arabs have a legal right to live anywhere in historic Palestine. Unless of course Bubbleboy produces an ACTUAL legally binding ruling (NOT JUST OPINIONS) that it isn’t so.

            I am waiting sunshine. You are all talk but no action. Where is such a ruling Bubbleboy, dear?

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Why? Because I started out by trying to prove to him something which even idiots like him should grasp.”

            This coming from the idiot who cannot grasp that if Israel never had “valid borders”, then Israel never was a valid state.

            If you’re going to tell us fantastical stories about states without borders, and tall tales about foreign American Jews who can magically “return” to places they’ve never been before, then please be sure to tell us the one about the fairies who live at the bottom of your garden.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            *sigh* Again with the polemics.

            That appears to be Gustav’s last refuge when all else fails.

            This entire – and lamentable – talkback is available for all to see.

            You need only look back through those threads to see that I am quite correct: Gustav has changed his argument.

            He has moved from this:
            “Israeli Jews and their families who used to live in the old Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and who returned there after 1967 are colonists. Yeah, Right.”
            to this:
            “Jews being allowed to return to places which were never exclusively Arab and which had a Jewish population for Millenia”

            Those are not the same argument – not in the slightest – with the latter argument making its first appearance only within the last 24 hours.

            I am perfectly correct on that point, which everyone can see for themselves by simply looking back through these threads.

            Gustav has been shifting from argument to argument like a frog on a hotplate, whereas I have not.

            Draw your own conclusions, everyone.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “You need only look back through those threads to see that I am quite correct: Gustav has changed his argument.”

            Again with his endless repetitive arguments. Read my previous post. Which is a response to bubbleboy’s above line of attack.

            And he has the hide to accuse me of waving my arms about.

            All he does is repeat … repeat … repeat …. every assertion and accusation multiple times. He is a regular little Goebbels who espoused repetition as a propaganda tool.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Again with his endless repetitive arguments. Read my previous post. Which is a response to bubbleboy’s above line of attack.”

            Notice that Gustav hasn’t actually refuted my point, which is that he changed his argument in the last 24 hours.

            He can’t actually refute that point, because all of his posts are up there, and he very clearly changed his argument in the last 24 hours.

            It’s pretty hard to refute irrefutable facts, which is why he is reduced to this ludicrous line of attack: Boo-Hoo, it’s so unfair that you keep pointing out where I changed my argument…. I keep pointing out that it’s mean, and you keep doing it!

            Cry me a river, Gustav.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Notice that Gustav hasn’t actually refuted my point, which is that he changed his argument in the last 24 hours.”

            Again with the self congratulations. Go stand in front of a mirror, Bubbleboy and take a bow…

            I refuted your silly argument alright. Go read my previous post again and try to get your obtuse little head around it, you tiresome little robot who wants to repeat everything ad nauseam.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “BUBBLEBOY:”Am I the only person who noticed that Gustav just changed his argument?”

            On second thought, Bubbleboy, since you like repetition so much, here is the post which refuted your silly argument about me changing my mind …

            Poor old Bubbleboy he is having a field day again with his school boyish theatrics …

            Why? Because I started out by trying to prove to him something which even idiots like him should grasp. That if a foreign invader illegally kicks out a people from their homes but 19 years later those people, the actual people who lost their homes, if they win back their homes in a defensive war, even an idiot would not object to those people returning to their homes.

            But alas, our Bubbleboy, didn’t even make the grade of an idiot. He objected on the ground that in his (and the opinions of other politicised idiots) opinion/s, the law forbids the return of ANY Jewish people to their homes.

            So yes, after such idiocy, I challenged him to produce the legally binding ruling which backs up his silly opinion. And yes, now I extend that challenge about all the Jews of Palestine (Israelis). I want our opinionated Bubbleboy to show me a legally binding ruling which tells us that Israeli Jews are barred from places which 19 years before was open to them and which has not become part of The proposed Palestinian state because a sovereign Arab state of Palestine has never existed. Never in the history of mankind.

            Yes, realistically the borders of Palestine are likely to go along the 1967 boundaries but they will not be THE 1967 boundaries. And because of that and because Arab Palestine never existed, till it comes into existence, both Jews and Arabs have a legal right to live anywhere in historic Palestine. Unless of course Bubbleboy produces an ACTUAL legally binding ruling (NOT JUST OPINIONS) that it isn’t so.

            I am waiting sunshine. You are all talk but no action. Where is such a ruling Bubbleboy, dear?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Again with the self congratulations.”

            It’s not an issue of “self congratulations”, Gustav.

            Nowhere do I “congratulate myself”.

            What I pointed out was your obvious failure to produce a refutation, despite your claims to the contrary.

            Or, put another way: I am pointing out your failings, not my success.

            Gustav: “I refuted your silly argument alright.”

            Do I have to point out AGAIN that Gustav has done no such thing?

            Apparently I do….

            Gustav: “Go read my previous post again and try to get your obtuse little head around it”

            Oh, we are both in agreement on THAT score. Congratulations!!

            Indeed, I urge everyone to read through Gustav’s previous posts.

            If you then you will see that he began arguing that Israel was simply letting
            “Jewish Palestinians”
            return to their exiled homes (Tuesday 25th), and then suddenly he started arguing that Israel had a right to ensure
            “Jews being allowed to return to places which were never exclusively Arab and which had a Jewish population for Millenia”
            (first appearance on Sunday 30th).

            Note the appearance of “Jewish Palestinians” on Tuesday, and note also its replacement by “Jews” on Sunday.

            Note also the reference to “returning to their homes” in his earlier arguments, versus the abrupt change to “places that had a Jewish polpn for Millenia”.

            Two very distinct arguments, indeed.

            The first was formulated over many long, long hours of argument, and the latter suddenly emerging like a Phoenix from the ashes of the former.

            I guess that’s what has to happen when your first argument turns to ashes….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “The first was formulated over many long, long hours of argument, and the latter suddenly emerging like a Phoenix from the ashes of the former.”

            Not true. We are approaching the 300th post on this thread go check out my earlier posts. Anyone can see that if anything, my point about the actual people who were kicked out of their homes and their families, was my later point. Which by the way you did not successfuly refute. Nor did you refute my other point. All you did was offer your legal opinion. Which is only an opinion as I keep on having to remind you.

            But in any case, why would it be invalid for anyone to introduce new point/s into a discussion?
            Because you say so, Bubbleboy?

            Very opinionated … very egotistical … very illogical and an individual who just asserts things without justification. Yes, Bubbleboy, I am talking about YOU!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Anyone can see that if anything, my point about the actual people who were kicked out of their homes and their families, was my later point.”

            A proposition that needs to be supported by that little inconvenient thing called “evidence”.

            Your posts are all there, Gustav.
            None are hidden from view.

            I’ll now ask you to point me to a post that pre-dates Sunday 30th wherein you say anything that can be interpreted to have the same meaning as this:
            “Jews being allowed to return to places which were never exclusively Arab and which had a Jewish population for Millenia”

            You have CLAIMED that you said this previously, and I’m calling BS on that claim.

            Now’s the time to put up or shut up, Gustav.

            Show me the quote. I’ll wait.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And your point is???

            Drum rolllllllllll …..

            That …

            I complained about the Illegal expulsion of ALL the Jews in 1948 which turned East Jerusalem from a mixed Jewish Arab population to a Jew free ethnically Arab population for 19 years.

            But I also complained about the individual Jews and their families who were not allowed to return to their homes for 19 years.

            I fail to see what the date of when I said which of the above negates anything about WHAT I said?

            Are you just arguing for argument’s sake?

            Here is a challenge for you … negate WHAT I said, not how and when I said it!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            OK, I think everyone here has heard more than enough: it is incontrovertible that Gustav is now waffling, and while that’s very amusing to see it doesn’t actually help him get out of the corner he has painted himself into.

            Gustav started out saying one thing, and then 2 days ago suddenly switched over to saying Something Else Entirely.

            And when I pointed that out to him (with quotes, which I’ll note that Gustav fails to do) then my argumentative little demented duck started flapping his arms about while shouting Waffle! Waffle! Waffle!

            It’s not a good look, Gustav.
            Really….. it’s not.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL

            In Bubble-World everyone who does not say things the way Mr Bubbleboy approves it then they are deemed to waffle.

            And whatsmore, Bubbleboy speaks for EVERYONE, no less…

            LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “In Bubble-World everyone who does not say things the way Mr Bubbleboy approves it then they are deemed to waffle.”

            No, actually. I’m pointing out that you keep claiming you ALWAYS advanced the same argument, yet you appear to be completely unable to substantiate that claim.

            Instead you waffle, and you continue to waffle even after I point out to you that “waffling” isn’t actually, you know, “evidence”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “No, actually. I’m …”

            Yes I know what YOU are doing is waffling, obfuscating, improvising, distorting and pretending that you have the right to set the rules of how, when and what people are allowed to say or don’t say!

            Pssssssssst … but you don’t!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Yes I know what YOU are doing is waffling, obfuscating, improvising, distorting and pretending that you have the right to set the rules of how, when and what people are allowed to say or don’t say!”

            Gustav, this is a simple question, and it only requires a “Yes/No” answer.

            Q: Can you find ANY post of yours that would substantiate your claim that you didn’t change your argument on Sunday 30th?

            Yes? Or No?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I am not interested in your stupid word games of …

            “You said this … when … And what …”

            You are attempting to be a control freak and your stupid games don’t work with me.

            Moreover … If you come back with one of your spins about what I said when I said it and how I said it again, or what it means, then I will respond however many times you try your stupid stunts.

            Get ghis: you won’t wear me down. Nor will you force me to play your games. I will respond any which way I like …

            Which bit of that don’t you understand?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Bubbleboy this is a simple yes or no answer …

            Are you an idiot who plays mind games or not?

            YES?

            Or

            NO?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Bubbleboy …

            Do you use words consistently?

            Isn’t it the case that sometimes you use the word troll to describe someone who disagrees with you? But at other times you refer to them as dimwits?

            You do know that such change of emphasis is highly significant and your inconsistency means indicisiveness and that you are conceding …

            LOL what an idiot …

            YES/NO?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Isn’t it the case that sometimes you use the word troll to describe someone who disagrees with you?”

            No. I have never called you a troll, and it is indisputably true you disagree with me on everything.

            Likewise, I never accuse Ginger Ellis of being a troll, regardless of her Very Many Other Faults.

            Gustav: “But at other times you refer to them as dimwits?”

            Well, yes, I’ll often use that word.

            I use it to describe people who are dim, because there does so appear to be a lot of that going about.

            But it is perfectly possible for someone to be dimwitted without them being a troll, just as it is possible for a troll to be reasonably quick-witted.

            You really do have some funny ideas, Gustav.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ok good post bubbleboy. I’ll give you that one.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Ok good post bubbleboy. I’ll give you that one.”

            Hallelujah!

            Give me a moment to pick my chair off the floor, and then we’ll continue….

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Are you an idiot who plays mind games or not?
            YES?
            Or
            NO?”

            Oh, goodie, an easy one…
            a) No, I am not an idiot
            b) Yes, I have been playing with your mind.

            And for “evidence” (you know, that nifty neat-o new thing I’ve been telling you about) I’ll point everyone to the 300+ posts wherein I have been rather cleverly messing with Gustav’s mind.

            There, done.

            Now, back to you and that nifty-new “evidence” thingie that I’ve telling you about.

            You claimed that you did not change your argument on the Sunday 30th.

            Evidence, please, to substantiate that claim.

            Should be easy, all it takes is one quote from BEFORE Sunday.

            Soooo, back over to you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Back over to me? To do what? To answer your red herring? It bores me. Your assertions are at best, as you say just mind games. At worst, they are not dven that …

            Either way, dealing with it is meaningless. But if you want, you can keep on trying to waste your time and mine. I will be here. Just for the hell of it …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Back over to me? To do what? To answer your red herring?”

            sigh.

            On Sunday Gustav said *this*.

            I pointed out that – wow! – Gustav had never said *this* before! Where’t’hell did that just come from?!?!?

            Gustav replied with feigned outrage: No! Untrue! He’s been saying *this* all along!

            Ahem. I pointed out that “all his posts from all along” are still up there, so point me to the prior posts please….

            Gustav?
            Gustav?
            Gustav?

            “Red Herring!”
            “I’ve already answered!”
            “Mind Games! Mind Games!”
            “It bores me”
            “It’s meaningless!”
            Hurrumph! Hurrumph! Hurrumph!

            Methinks Gustav doth protest too much……

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And methinks Bubbleboy is an idiot who thinks he is a legend in his own mind.

            I must admit, had I thought that he has a mind to mess with, I would have claimed that I messed with HIS mind. But alas, I can’t mess with something which he hasn’t got, poor Bubbleboy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            I’d like to point out that my post contained “propositions”, which means that there is something in there for Gustav to argue against.

            And in response I get this:

            Gustav: “And methinks Bubbleboy is an idiot who thinks he is a legend in his own mind.”

            There is no proposition in that paragraph, so it is a polemic.

            Maybe he’ll come home with a wet sail in his next paragraph….

            Gustav: “I must admit, had I thought that he has a mind to mess with, I would have claimed that I messed with HIS mind. But alas, I can’t mess with something which he hasn’t got, poor Bubbleboy.”

            Alas, no. No proposition.

            Just… more polemic.

            How tedious.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “And for evidence” (you know, that nifty neat-o new thing I’ve been telling you about) I’ll point everyone to the 300+ posts wherein I have been rather cleverly messing with Gustav’s mind.”

            Oooh …. please don’t Bubbleboy … not that … anything but that …. have mercy …

            I am shaking in my boots Bubbleboy, LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav has been shifting from argument to argument like a frog on a hotplate, whereas I have not.”

            Shifting from argument to argument? Bubbleboy is exaggerating and he is up to his old polemics.

            I used the same argument consistently but sometimes I emphasized the actual Jewish families who were illegally expelled from East Jerusalem by a foreign Arab army (Jordan’s). At other times, I talked about the population mix of East Jerusalem which never was only ethnically pure Arab but was a mixed Jewish Arab population.

            That is changing my arguments? This guy, our Bubbleboy, is desperate.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “I used the same argument consistently but sometimes I emphasized the actual Jewish families who were illegally expelled from East Jerusalem by a foreign Arab army (Jordan’s).”

            Then you should have no trouble producing a quote from BEFORE Sunday wherein you didn’t “emphasise” your “Jewish right of return” argument.

            After all, you say that you only did that “sometimes”, correct?

            Then it is axiomatic that there were “other times” when you presented your full argument sans “emphasis”.

            It should be dead-simple for you to show me “those times”, Gustav, since all your posts from BEFORE Sunday are still up there.

            One quote.

            That’s all it will take:
            One quote.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”Then you should have no trouble producing a quote from BEFORE Sunday wherein you didn’t “emphasise” your “Jewish right of return” argument.”

            Sigh … I shouldn’t have to do it but here is a quote in one of the first posts of mine posted on 25th November …

            BUBBLEBOY:“The TERRITORY was not and is not “Israeli territory”, and so this is a “belligerent occupation”.”

            GUSTAV:”Neither was it or is “Arab territory”. Legally speaking, it is still part of the old British Mandate which was known as Palestine. But the Palestinians were not just Arabs, they were Jews too and the fact that in order to confuse unsuspecting people, the Arabs now try to make everyone believe that only Arabs were Palstinians and they want to call their new state Palestine, does not give them exclusive right to those territories till such time as formal borders will be negotiated and recognized. Till then, legally speaking, EVERYTHING is disputed.”

            Now bubbleboy will use this to rehash what we already discussed to death all over this thread. What a bore

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Oh, please, spare me.

            Gustav produces a quote that he used to dispute the sovereign status of the TERRITORY, and claims that this is a quote setting out his views on Israel’s SETTLEMENT POLICY.

            No, it isn’t.
            No, it doesn’t.

            Honestly, Gustav, you need to do much, much better than that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Honestly Bubbleboy, you are in denial.

            YOU need to do much better than that.

            Reply to Comment
    16. Yeah, right

      Gustav: “What result might that be?”

      sigh

      Doing *that* is prohibited.

      Only *he* insists on breaking *that* particular prohibition.

      Here is the criticism of *him* for breaking *that* prohibition.

      Queue Gustav: Why are you picking on him for? Why aren’t you picking on anyone else?

      Queue the correct answer: Because *he* is the only dude doing *that*.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        GUSTAV: “What result might that be?”

        BUBBLEBOY:”sigh

        Doing *that* is prohibited….”

        Prohibited? According to whom? According to people with opinions. People like you. There is a difference between theories and opinions based on politics and based even on what is or isn’t fair. There are many people who think that Israel’s “settlements” in the West Bank are unfair but that is just an opinion. And opinion is not law. Read my above post again. It explains what I mean.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Gustav: “Prohibited? According to whom? According to people with opinions. People like you. There is a difference between theories and opinions based on politics and based even on what is or isn’t fair. There are many people who think that Israel’s “settlements” in the West Bank are unfair but that is just an opinion. And opinion is not law. Read my above post again. It explains what I mean.”

          Translation: Israel does not have to abide by the int’l treaties that it signs.

          Q: Why not?
          A: Because Gustav is waving his arms about like a demented duck.

          That’s the secret of evading any obligations under int’l law: waving your arms about in a hysterical fashion.

          Works every time, according to Gustav…..

          Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “demented duck”

            Thank you for making me spit my coffee out. ROFLMAO!

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            Don’t choke on it …

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Don’t choke on it …”

            Don’t choke on Irael’s gargantuan clit.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Don’t choke on it …”

            Don’t choke on ISrael’s gargantuan clit.

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            Woof woof woof doggie.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Woof woof woof doggie.”

            Quack, quack, gobble Zionist.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Q: Why not?
            A: Because Gustav is waving his arms about like a demented duck.”

            Poor old Bubbleboy. He ran out of logical arguments now he turns to ridicule,

            Well, I can do the same. Your are an endless recording of a coo-coo bird always singing the same song. Over and over and over again and you think that repetition is truth. But it ain’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Your are an endless recording of a coo-coo bird always singing the same song. Over and over and over again and you think that repetition is truth. But it ain’t.”

            Keep quacking, hasbara-duck. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            Keep pissing in the wind. Fool!

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Keep pissing in the wind. Fool!”

            Keep crapping where you eat, Zionist.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Awwww poopsie. You are back. Did Brian miss you, so he conjured you up?

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Awwww poopsie. You are back. Did Brian miss you, so he conjured you up?”

            Awwww, hasbara-duck. You are flapping your insignificant little wings again. Did Brian hurt your fragile little feelings, you poor demented thing…LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            I think it’s more accurate to say he ran out of patience supplying logical arguments than that he ran out of logical arguments. We all have our limits.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            Patience?

            Your mate is Mr Patience himself. I think Gustav called him a robot. I actually think Gustav might have a point. I think he is a very very boring robot.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “Poor old Bubbleboy. He ran out of logical arguments now he turns to ridicule,”

            Hasbara-duck ran out of “logical” arguments in 1948, when Israel defined its borders, and has been quacking dementedly ever since…LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “He ran out of logical arguments now he turns to ridicule,”

            Dude, I’m pointing out that this post of yours:
            “Prohibited? According to whom? According to people with opinions. People like you. There is a difference between theories and opinions based on politics and based even on what is or isn’t fair. There are many people who think that Israel’s “settlements” in the West Bank are unfair but that is just an opinion. And opinion is not law. Read my above post again. It explains what I mean”
            is nothing more – and no less – than a polemic.

            It is devoid of, well, anything, because it amounts to this: I reject your reality and substitute my own.

            I am quite correct to point out that this is, indeed, the debating equivalent of waving your arms about like a demented duck.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Well then Bubbleboy, I could equally repeat my claims 100 times in response to each one of your hundred claims and don’t tell me that we won’t BOTH be just waving our arms about like demented ducks.

            Here goes ONE …

            In 1948, the Palestinian Arabs together with their Jordanian allies, illegally kicked out all Palestinian Jews from East Jerusalem …

            Consequently, After the 1967 victory in a war of self defense, Israel had every right to restore the previous population mix in East Jerusalem.

            Wanna know why?

            Because that situation is exactly analogous to a stolen car being restored to it’s rightful owner even though the thief sold the stolen car to someone who bought it.

            You do understand that in such situations, such sales are not recognized as legal sales and the original owner ends up getting his car back. Don’t ya, bubbleboy? Because if you don’t then you are doing the equivalent of just waving your arms about like a demented duck, to borrow a phrase from you …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Consequently, After the 1967 victory in a war of self defense, Israel had every right to restore the previous population mix in East Jerusalem.”

            sigh. Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV says otherwise.

            Gustav: “Wanna know why?”

            sigh. I’m sure you will insist on telling me, just as I am equally certain that the excuse you will come up with WON’T actually evade the prohibition that is to be found in Article 49 of GCIV.

            Soooo, over to you….

            Gustav: “Because that situation is exactly analogous to a stolen car being restored to it’s rightful owner even though the thief sold the stolen car to someone who bought it.”

            sigh. Grant Theft Auto is not covered by International Humanitarian Law.

            By way of very marked contrast, the colonization of an occupied territory by citizens of the occupying power *is* covered by IHL.

            And IHl’s position on that matter is crystal-clear: the occupying power is unconditionally prohibited from doing that.

            So your “wanna know why?” is not only an exercise in pointlessness, it is also an object lesson on how NOT to employ an analogy.

            Gustav: “You do understand that in such situations, such sales are not recognized as legal sales and the original owner ends up getting his car back. Don’t ya, bubbleboy?”

            I do, just as I understand that law regarding Grand Theft Auto is…. a domestic criminal law, and as such is not analogous to International Humanitarian Law.

            Yeah, unlike some people I understand that point perfectly well.

            But you? You, heh, not so much.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sigh, article 49 of the Geneva Convention does not apply in this instance.

            You disagree? Then tell me this: why wasn’t it tested in a court of law in 47 years?

            Interesting that they took the case of the security fence to the ICJ but not this. Why?

            I’ll tell Ya why. Because they had no confidence of winning. That’s why!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You disagree? Then tell me this: why wasn’t it tested in a court of law in 47 years?”

            OK, excellent, Gustav appears to have abandoned the polemic. Well done, Gustav!

            But which court do you have in mind, Gustav?

            Gustav: “Interesting that they took the case of the security fence to the ICJ but not this. Why?”

            Who’s “they”, Gustav?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Don’t ask me dude…

            I guess it is whoever who thinks that we are doing something illegal be allowing East Jerusalem to have a Jewish population too much like it had for at least 3000 years barring the 19 years between 1948 and 1967.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Don’t ask me dude…”

            Oh, OK, apparently only one of us knows the answer to those two questions, and it ain’t Gustav….

            Gustav: “I guess it is whoever who thinks that we are doing something illegal be allowing East Jerusalem to have a Jewish population too much like it had for at least 3000 years barring the 19 years between 1948 and 1967.”

            Such an… odd answer.

            You wanted to know why “they” haven’t taken this issue to court, yet you can’t name the court that you expect “them” to take it to.

            Well, du’oh!, maybe “they” are facing exactly the same problem that you are.

            Nothing new in that e.g. prior to the establishment of the ICJ there was no “world court”, yet there was undoubtedly “int’l law” and there were, without question, “violations of int’l law”.

            Indeed, modern International Humanitarian Law appears to predate the establishment of a “world court” by, oh, at least a hundred years, if not more.

            Apparently the International Community didn’t share Gustav’s insistence that the only remedy for a violation of int’l law is to “Take that sucker to court!”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes Bubbleboy, now remind me again, what was that incredibly emphatetic response by you when you (wrongly) felt that I complained about victimhood?

            Was it something about crying rivers … or such?

            In any case, they could at least try and do what they did with the security fence? Couldn’t they? The ICJ ruled on that didn’t they? I know it wouldn’t be binding but at least they cpuld hang their hat on that. I mean the ICJ actually ruled in their favor. Do they think they have less of a case with regards to the Juden of East Jerusalem?

            Telling … very telling .,.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “In any case, they could at least try and do what they did with the security fence?”

            Again, who is “they”?

            Am I right in thinking that you don’t really know who actually referred the question of the security fence to the ICJ for its Advisory Opinion?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What is it they say, Bubbleboy? Something about innocent before being proven guilty?

            But what do you and the ICJ have? C’mon Bubbleboy, you can say it …

            O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S.

            Here is the definition of Opinion …

            “a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.”

            Mull on that Bubbleboy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “But what do you and the ICJ have? C’mon Bubbleboy, you can say it … O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S.”

            Err, no, it was an “Advisory Opinion”, not an “opinion”.

            The ICJ has, amongst other roles, the role of being “authoritative” on the matter of International Law.

            So if the UN General Assembly (which is a political body) is unsure or divided on “What does International Law say about this?” then it turns to the court and asks for its advice, precisely because the court is competent to deliver the “authoritative” answer.

            UNGA: Is **this** legal, or not?
            ICJ: It is illegal under int’l law.
            UNGA: Ah, OK, thanks, now we know.
            ICJ: You are most welcome.

            You can pooh-pooh that exchange – feel free – and by doing so you are simply displaying your profound ignorance of the difference between a “Contentious Issue” and an “Advisory Opinion”.

            The same rules, procedures and deliberations take place in both instances, the difference being that in the former case the court is adjudicating on something that is “adversarial”, while in the latter case it isn’t.

            And because the first is adversarial the court’s ruling has to be binding upon the two parties to the dispute.

            But the second is not adversarial, and so it isn’t “binding” only in the sense that there are no “parties in dispute” to be “bound by the ruling”.

            So in the case of an AO it can’t be “binding” because isn’t intended to be “binding”. It is, however, “authoritative”, precisely because AO’s are intended to be “authoritative”.

            Look, I know you don’t understand any of this.

            I know that.

            But there are others out there who might be able to comprehend all this.

            But not you. You’re a hopeless lost cause.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The ICJ ruled on that didn’t they?”

            Yeah, indeed they did, and in commendable depth.

            So we can now add that ICJ Advisory Opinion to the list of documents that Gustav hasn’t read.

            I suggest you do so immediately, Gustav, because if you do you’ll find that the ICJ considered the issue of the “de jure” applicability of Geneva Convention IV.

            Their Advisory Opinion is…

            ICJ: “the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is
            applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the 1967 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.”

            On the specific question of the Israeli colonies being a violation of Article 49 of CIV, well, gosh, the court considered that too.

            It’s view?

            ICJ: “The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.”

            Soooo, you were saying?

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            Actually, Gustav, you forgot a very important additional word. Bias. They have biased opinions. A very bad combination.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Actually, Kiwi, the best description I have ever read regarding the judges on the ICJ is that it’s like hearding cats i.e. getting them all to move in the same direction is well-neigh impossible.

            Yet this issue achieved exactly that. Judges from All Over The World heard the arguments and they all agreed on the core of this issue, and the ONLY dissent came from (no! can it be?) the one judge who just-so-happened to share your tribal affiliation.

            And even HE didn’t dispute the facts of the case, nor even the conclusions of the court.

            He simply didn’t think the court should have taken the case in the 1st place because, err, well, because.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            Whoe wee

            I am overwhelmed by your proof.

            Then again, I read about the unanimous court decisions in the deep south of the USA in the old days of segragation. There was plenty of unanimity when they sentenced black Americans to death by hanging on trumped up charges.

            I guess someone like you would see that as proof that their unanimous judgements must have all been right.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Kiwi: “I am overwhelmed by your proof.”

            As am I by your baseless assertion that the full bench of the International Court of Justice is a biased institution.

            But, hey, who am I to quibble with your unbiased opinion, right?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Do they think they have less of a case with regards to the Juden of East Jerusalem?”

            So we have gone from “Jewish Palestinians” to “Jews” to “Juden of East Jerusalem”, have we?

            Any other permutations you’d like to try, Gustav?

            I’ll stick to this one: “Israeli”.

            But w.r.t. your question, I believe you’ll find the answer here….

            ICJ: “The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”

            So, yeah, I think that “they” had an excellent case, and the ICJ thought so too….

            Gustav: “Telling … very telling .,.”

            Indeed, just not in the way that you were hoping.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Wow, the ICJ huh?

            I mockingly brought them up to illustrate the fact that the eternal critics of Israel were not even confident enough to approach a stacked politicised UN body like the ICJ about the so called settlements. Yes that tells a story.

            The fact that despite that, the ICJ saw fit to exceed it’s brief and commented about the “settlements” anyway illustrates the type of body that it is. It is politicised up to it’s eyeballs. No self respecting legal body would do what the ICJ did. It opined about something which it wasn’t even asked about. A bit like in a case of larceny, a court would rule about a wife beating.

            The list is far too long for me to mention all the things that were wrong with that ICJ opinion which was non binding. The link below lists all the flaws of the ICJ’s advisory OPINION…

            http://www.mythsandfacts.org/replyonlineedition/chapter-9.html

            So, I am still waiting for a REAL legal binding resolution that backs your accusations up, Bubbleboy. Haven’t got one? Then all you have are opinions and counter opinions. Not proof or vindication of your case.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You might want to cast your eye on this too.

            “The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases: contentious issues between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court; and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often do.”

            In the case of the security fence ruling, the ICJ was asked for it’s opinion by the UN General Assembly. Which means that they gave the ICJ it’s brief. Which means that it was an extremely restrictive and one eyed brief because it came from a highly politicized biased organization which is stacked by nearly 60 Muslim states and other assorted Arab allies, many of whom don’t even recognize Israel let alone have diplomatic relations with it.

            What is it they say?

            GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out.

            And the UN GA together with the ICJ which had several Judges from Arab and Muslim nations, did not disappoint.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Moreover … what kind of court would make a ruling to say that a country has no right of self defence?

            It seems that yhe ICJ is such a kangaroo court because this bit of nonsense was part of their ruling …

            “In a 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice, “Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall”.

            Would one buy a used car from such a group?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Moreover … what kind of court would make a ruling to say that a country has no right of self defence?”

            Dunno. Certainly not the ICJ.

            What it ruled (correctly) is that Israel can not claim “self-defence” as its justification for building a wall to protect those illegal colonies.

            The colonies are illegal, and therefore the only LEGAL means that Israel has for “defending” those colonists is to unroot them and move them back inside Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Moreover … what kind of court would make a ruling to say that a country has no right of self defence?”

            Please note the absolutism in that quote i.e. Gustav is arguing about a court that insists that Israel HAS NO RIGHT OF SELF DEFENCE.

            Compare that with what this court actually says…..

            ICJ: Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity *IN* *ORDER* *TO* preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.

            No absolutism there.
            No blanket statement.

            The Court is saying that “Self-Defence! Self-Defence!” is not a magic wand, and waving it over these colonies can not make legal that which is patently illegal.

            Or, in short: Gustav is either lying or stupid. Or both.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Absolutism my foot.

            The proof is in the pudding.

            Before the security barrier wasconstructed, there were on average two suicide bombings a week in Israel’s major cities.about 7000 of us were murdered or maimed by Arab terrorists between 2000 and 2006. Since then we lost much smaller rate of casualties.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Absolutism my foot.”

            Yes, absolutism. You categorically and unequivocally insisted that the ICJ had ruled that Israel had no right of self-defence.

            Gustav: “The proof is in the pudding.”

            Arrr, why do I have a sinking feeling that Gustav is about to erect a straw man?

            Gustav: “Before the security barrier was constructed, there were on average two suicide bombings a week in Israel’s major cities.”

            And there it is. Magnificent in its size and 100% full of straw.

            Gustav made this claim: The ICJ “ruled” that Israel “has no right of self-defence”.

            And his “proof” for that assertion?

            Why, he reels off statistics regarding the effectiveness of Israel’s anti-terrorist activities.

            Ahem. That’s all very interesting, Gustav.

            But as facts go they would only be relevant to this claim:
            “The ICJ had ruled that Israel’s anti-terrorism efforts don’t work.”

            But those same facts are in no way relevant to this claim:
            “The ICJ had ruled that Israel had not right of self-defence.”

            Look, I know you can’t understand the difference. Really, I do.

            But that’s because you don’t know a straw man from a polemic from a red herring from any of the myriad other logical fallacies that you deploy without hesitation and without understanding.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “ICJ: Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity *IN* *ORDER* *TO* preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of tHe wall”

            I gave our silly Bubbleboy friend the statistics of terrorism before and after the construction of the security barrier which clearly indicated that the security barrier brought the incidence of terrorism to an abrupt end.

            Yet the ICJ said that Israel cannot use self defence as an excuse for building the wall.

            But poor old Bubbleboy is arguing that the ICJ said no such thing. Wow!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            ICJ: “Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity IN ORDER TO preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall”

            Gustav: “I gave our silly Bubbleboy friend the statistics of terrorism before and after the construction of the security barrier which clearly indicated that the security barrier brought the incidence of terrorism to an abrupt end.”

            That’s a non-sequitur.

            The court wasn’t asked if the wall was EFFECTIVE, it was asked if the wall was LEGAL.

            The court is correct: where-ever the wall is used to perpetuate an illegal act (colonization) then the wall itself is illegal.

            Gustav: “Yet the ICJ said that Israel cannot use self defence as an excuse for building the wall.”

            No, read the quote again: the court said that Israel can not use “self-defence” to make it “legal” to perpetuate an illegal act i.e. the colonization of an occupied territory.

            That’s an altogether different proposition.

            Gustav: “But poor old Bubbleboy is arguing that the ICJ said no such thing. Wow!”

            sigh.

            The quote says something completely different to what Gustav is claiming, and he is complaining to **me** about **him** being too dim to comprehend plain English.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”Non-sequitur.

            The court wasn’t asked if the wall was EFFECTIVE, it was asked if the wall was LEGAL.”

            Notice how Bubbleboy Ducks and weaves. He suddenly changed the discussion from…

            Arguing about my statement that the ICJ ruled that Israel has no right to use ‘Self Defence’ as a justification of the construction of the security fence …

            He changed his argument to the above …

            He loves going around in circles, our Bubbleboy. Kinda cute, but very stupid. Actually, there is method to his madness. He thinks he is messing with my mind and that I don’t know what he is doing and why. But I have news for him, I know exactly why he is doing it. And I have more news for him. I am staying the course and I will keep on posting on + 972 for as long as they let me.

            So go on Bubbleboy, post another 1000 stupid posts here. I am as patient as you are and at the end of it I will recommence posting on other threads too. See you both here and there …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Wow, the ICJ huh?”

            Yeah, the ICJ, because *you* brought them up.

            Gustav: “I mockingly brought them up to”…

            No, you brought them up because out of your limitless ignorance you thought that they had nothing to say regarding the issues at hand.

            You are now furiously backpedalling because I’ve just told you that they had p.l.e.n.t.y. to say on these issues, none of them good for your.

            Really, you are becoming a caricature of yourself.

            Damned amusing in that ewww-isn’t-that-revolting sorta’ way.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And here is a counter opinion of judge Stephen Schwebel of the ICJ at an earlier date.

            http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id248.html

            Interesting, thing this word “OPINION” even judges of the same organizations have differing opinions.

            But verdicts, Nah, Bubbleboy just cannot bring up a binding verdict.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “And here is a counter opinion of judge Stephen Schwebel of the ICJ at an earlier date.”

            A “counter opinion” …. “at an earlier date”.

            So, not so much an opinion regarding the case, then?

            Unless you want to claim that he hopped into the WayBack Machine with Sherman and Prof Peabody.

            What next?

            Are you now going to bring forth the tortured writings of Al Dershowitz, or Julius Stone, or Eugene Rostow, or any number of other Eminent Legal Eagles from The Time Before Time Itself.

            Here, a challenge: line up ALL the legal eagles that you can find who argue that the Advisory Opinion got its International Law All Wrong.

            All of them, Gustav.

            Do that and I’ll wager good money that all the names you come up with will share TWO things in common.

            One will be that they are all lawyers.

            Care to guess what the other one will be?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            An opinion about the so called settlements which judge Stepen Schwebel deemed to be NOT illegal. Go figure. Now how would bubbleboy explain the difference between the two legal opinions? He would say that Schwebel got it wrong. Why? Because you are a pro Palestinian with a bias against us. I would say that you bastards are wrong and yes I could be accused of bias too.

            But non biased people might conclude that maybe the case is not black and white. Maybe there are no pat answers…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “An opinion about the so called settlements which judge Stepen Schwebel deemed to be NOT illegal.”

            Go figure, heh?

            Gustav: “Now how would bubbleboy explain the difference between the two legal opinions?”

            One opinion was decided by the full bench, while the other was the singular opinion of an judge who has spent his entire career suborning his legal reputation to his tribal loyalty.

            Gustav: “He would say that Schwebel got it wrong.”

            No, I would say that Schwabel has spent his entire career balancing his professional integrity against his tribal loyalty, and whenever they come into conflict he has invariably prostituted the former in the service of the latter.

            Gustav: “But non biased people might conclude that maybe the case is not black and white.”

            Well, that is indeed a very interesting point, and well worth considering.

            Here is a legal issue that pits “the Jewish state” against “everyone else”.

            And here is the legal profession and, yes indeed, we can see them lining up into two camps.

            One is (a smaller) “pro-Jewish state” camp, and another (very much larger) is the camp that thinks that the legal arguments being put forward by “the Jewish state” is utter tosh.

            And what do we notice?

            We notice that the (much smaller) “pro-Jewish state” camp is…. 99.99% Jewish.

            And the other group? The much bigger camp that thinks “the Jewish state” is talking self-serving nonsense? What about it?

            Well, it isn’t a partisan group.

            That group contains Christian lawyers, Muslim lawyers, agnostic and atheist lawyers, whatever, INCLUDING a very large number of Jewish lawyers.

            There is no exclusiveness about that group, certainly not in the way that there is in that other “Pro-Jewish State/100% Kosher” group.

            Get it?

            The partisanship shown in this legal debate lies entirely on the “pro-Jewish state” side, where that side is entirely made up of lawyers who have an obvious conflict-of-interest.

            If the argument put forward by “the Jewish state” had any legal merit then you’d find a wide cross-section of the legal fraternity sitting in that camp, even if some sit there with gritted-teeth and others are holding their nose.

            But you don’t.

            The ONLY lawyers on that side are all Jewish lawyers, and that is a very strong indication that Israel’s arguments are only “persuasive” to lawyers who place their service of their tribe above their professional objectivity.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “That group contains Christian lawyers, Muslim lawyers, agnostic and atheist lawyers, whatever, INCLUDING a very large number of Jewish lawyers.”

            …all of whom serve one master, the UN General Assembly which has nearly 60 Muslim Arab States. Who control half the world’s oil reserves and represent huge commercial interests etc etc

            All of whom line up against as bubble aptly emphasised, a teeny weeny Jewish state whose political and commercial influence pales into insignificance compared to the above.

            On top of that the panel of the ICJ judges is stacked with a Jordanian an Egyptian and a Malaysian. Moreover the career path of the rest of the judges is heavily dependant on who they please or don’t please….

            Get the picture? And according to our Bubbleboy it is a no brainer that the ICJ was non biased. Nah, not much …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “all of whom serve one master, the UN General Assembly which has nearly 60 Muslim Arab States.”

            Whoah! Where’d that bit o’ hyperbolic nonsense come from?

            I’m talking about All Lawyers, Everywhere.

            I’m talking every lawyer who has ever expressed their opinion on these two questions:
            a) Is GCIV applicable to this occupation?
            b) Are these settlements a gross violation of that Convention?

            Now, take All The Lawyers, and sort them into two camps:
            One that says “Hell, No!”
            One that says “Yes, and Yes”

            And what do you notice about the “No!” camp?

            Well, for one thing it’s much the smaller of the two camps.

            And there is also something oddly… homogeneous about that group.

            That’s right, that camp is 99.99999% Kosher.

            The number of Gentiles in there would be statistically insignificant, if not utterly imperceptible.

            But what about the “Yes!” camp?

            Well, it’s a whole lot bigger.

            It’s also much more of a mixed bag: there are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics and, heh, aren’t those Buhddists?

            In fact the most striking thing about the “Yes” camp isn’t its “ethnic composition”.

            It is this: every lawyer who can reasonably claim to be “dispassionate” or “non-partisan” is in that camp, almost none of them is in the “No” camp.

            As in……

            Here is the “No” camp, and it contains ALL of the highly-partisan pro-Israeli Jews.

            Here is the “Yes” camp, and it contains ALL of the rabidly anti-Israeli Jew-haters.

            But the “Yes” camp also contains ALL of the lawyers who don’t have a dog in this fight.

            And it is because THOSE guys are in there that the “Yes” camp is much, much bigger than the “No” camp.

            Q: And why did they all jump into the “Yes” camp?
            A: Because they know a steaming pile of nonsense when they see it, and when they look at the arguments coming out of the “No” camp that’s exactly what they see.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “On top of that the panel of the ICJ judges is stacked with a Jordanian an Egyptian and a Malaysian.”

            I am rather at a loss to understand how you can “stack” a 15-man court with just One Fifth of that full bench.

            And note that those three judges represent “Africa”. I’d suggest that the 2nd most populous continent getting one-fifth of the bench seems about right to me.

            Note also, of course, that it defies all logic to cast doubts on a 2004 advisory opinion by pointing to the CURRENT composition of the court.

            Gustav: “Moreover the career path of the rest of the judges is heavily dependant on who they please or don’t please….”

            Untrue.

            The list of judicial candidates for the ICJ is drawn up by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

            That is as non-partisan a group as you could hope to find, and it is NOT a United Nations body.

            Indeed, the process of drawing up the list of potential judges of the ICJ is very much less partisan than that used to select Israeli Supreme Court Judges or Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Is the ICJ likely to be stacked by people-Arab, Anti-Israel judges?

            Well, let’s see how are the Judges elected to serve on the ICJ? This is how …

            The General Assembly and the Security Council proceed, independently of one another, to elect five members of the Court.

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_judges_election,_2011#Election_procedure

            Even BUBBLEBOY conceded that the UN General Assembly is a politicised body yet their vote is essential to get any Judge elected. So guess what kinds of Judges would they tend to elect?

            … good guess, the kinds of judges who would be willing to push the wheel-barrow of the UN General Assembly. What wheel-Barrow? … well, many wheel-barrows to be sure … but one of the favorite wheel-barrows of the UN General Assembly is their pro-Arab, anti-Israel wheel barrow. So it would be a reasonable assumption that there would be a tendency to elect judges who fit that profile. Perhaps not 100% of the time but more often than not …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Now how would bubbleboy explain the difference between the two legal opinions?”

            Oh, that’s pretty easy.

            Schwebel’s opinion was “(not written in any of his former official capacities)”.

            It said so in that web page you pointed me to.

            So Schwebel’s Opinion(tm) happens to be his “personal opinion”, not his “judicial deliberations”.

            It couldn’t be otherwise, since the “opinion” that you point me to dates from 1970 when Schwebel was Just A Lawyer, Not A Judge.

            Compare and contrast.

            The Advisory Opinion of the Judges on the full bench of the International Court of Justice are, indeed, given in their official capacities as judges of the court.

            (They are, of course, free to whistle an entirely different tune when they doff the robes and slip into something A Little Less Formal.)

            So I’d have to suggest that if you insist on putting up the OFFICIAL DELIBERATIONS OF THE FULL BENCH OF AN INTERNATIONAL COURT against the “personal opinion” of some dude working in a law office then, so sorry, not much of a contest there, is there?

            What next, Gustav?

            Are you going to drag out the Levy Report and breathlessly explain to me that it possesses Very Heavy Gravitas Indeed because Levy was “a former judge” and therefore his “personal opinion” outweighs the ruling of the full bench of the Israel High Court of Justice?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Interesting, thing this word “OPINION” even judges of the same organizations have differing opinions.”

            Schwebel wasn’t a judge of the ICJ when he wrote those articles, Gustav.

            Indeed, he wasn’t a judge of any description in 1970, which is when he wrote those articles.

            He was merely a jobbing lawyer, and his job was at John Hopkins University.

            Which I’m sure is an esteemed institution, but it ain’t the International Court of Justice.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes a lawyer with an opinion who was elected to the ICJ in 1981 and subsequently got reelected twice and he served as it’s president between 1997 and 2000. Do you think he changed his views because he served on the ICJ, Bubbleboy?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Yes a lawyer with an opinion who was elected to the ICJ in 1981 and subsequently got reelected twice and he served as it’s president between 1997 and 2000. Do you think he changed his views because he served on the ICJ, Bubbleboy?”

            What, that the views he held in 1970 are not at all the views he would express now?

            Yeah, I think that very, very possible indeed.

            After all, I no longer have the same world-view that I held in 1970, not even close.

            You do, do you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Yeah, I think that very, very possible indeed.”

            Possible? Or probable?

            If it is the latter, what’s the chance that he would keep his mouth shut about it? Nah, not much.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Possible? Or probable?”

            Go ask him, dude.

            He wrote outlandishly partisan legal opinions back in 1970 when he was Nought But A Pup.

            When he was appointed to the court in 1981 he suddenly ceased pushing those outlandishly partisan legal opinions (rightly so, a court bench is not a bully pulpit).

            He retired from the court in 2000 and (as far as I can tell, please correct me) he has not reverted to his prior habit of writing outlandishly partisan legal opinions.

            But he’s still out there, Gustav.

            Washington DC, if wiki is to be believed.

            So get off your bum and contact him. Ask him if he still holds those same views that he expressed in 1970.

            After all, he’s the only person who can give you that answer.

            Do that, then come back and tell me what he says.

            No hurry, I’ll wait.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Possible? Or probable? [Bubbleboy’s assertion that judge Schwebel changed his mind about his claim that the “settlements” we’re legal]

            BUBBLEBOY:”Go ask him, dude.”

            An interesting proposition. BUBBLEBOY ventures a guess that Scwebel changed his mind about siding with Israel about the settlements. But he wants ME to prove that he did not, otherwise, he claims that his guess must be correct. This is to say the least is a very convoluted bit of logic. It is more like illogic, no?

            BUBBLEBOY:”He wrote outlandishly partisan legal opinions back in 1970 when he was Nought But A Pup.”

            Let it be noted that the assertion “partisan” is just Bubbleboy’s opinion.

            BUBBLEBOY:”When he was appointed to the court in 1981 he suddenly ceased pushing those outlandishly partisan legal opinions (rightly so, a court bench is not a bully pulpit).”

            He stopped it? How exactly? He made his opinion known earlier on. Has he formally retracted his earlier opinion? Of course not. Ergo, he did not stop his opinion.

            BUBBLEBOY:”He retired from the court in 2000 and (as far as I can tell, please correct me) he has not reverted to his prior habit of writing outlandishly partisan legal opinions.”

            Habit? There was no habit. He published his opinion and he left it at that.

            BUBBLEBOY:”But he’s still out there, Gustav.”

            And?

            BUBBLEBOY:”So get off your bum and contact him. Ask him if he still holds those same views that he expressed in 1970.”

            Why should I? He made his opinion known. I am not aware of a public retraction of that opinion by him so I am entitled to believe that he still holds those opinions.

            BUBBLEBOY:”After all, he’s the only person who can give you that answer.

            Do that, then come back and tell me what he says.”

            Are you kidding? The onus of proof is on you, not on me. You are the one who claims that he changed his opinion and you have no shred of evidence to back up your claim.

            BUBBLEBOY :”No hurry, I’ll wait.”

            If you are waiting for me, it will be a long wait ..

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “An interesting proposition.”

            I think we should all brace ourselves for a MISrepresentation of that proposition.

            Gustav: “BUBBLEBOY ventures a guess that Scwebel changed his mind about siding with Israel about the settlements.”

            Annnnnd, there it is, and it’s magnificent.

            Perhaps it is best to take a few steps back and see how this started.

            You know, here:
            Gustav (earlier): “And here is a counter opinion of judge Stephen Schwebel of the ICJ at an earlier date.”

            And, here:
            Gustav (earlier): “An opinion about the so called settlements which judge Stepen Schwebel deemed to be NOT illegal.”

            I defy anyone to read that and NOT reach the conclusion that Gustav was under the belief that Schwebel was offering his opinion “from the bench” i.e. as “Judge Schwebel of the ICJ”, and not as “Schwebel, lawyer for hire”.

            But that is incorrect: Schwebel offered those opinions in 1970, well before he was appointed to the court, and AFAIK (Gustav can correct me otherwise) he did not once put forward those same opinions “from the bench”.

            No real surprises there: laywers are hired guns, and a lawyer will often put forward arguments on behalf of those whose interests he is representing even if he knows that those arguments are a steaming pile of nonsense.

            After all, that’s what they do…..

            Gustav: “But he wants ME to prove that he did not, otherwise, he claims that his guess must be correct. This is to say the least is a very convoluted bit of logic. It is more like illogic, no?”

            Illogic, yes, but that’s because you are misrepresenting my argument.

            My argument is this:
            Schwebel articulated a series of outrageously partisan legal arguments in 1970, which is a full decade before he was appointed to the court.

            In the 20 years that he was a judge he did not offer those same legal arguments From The Bench.

            Which meant that he had voiced an opinion 3 years after Israel had seized the West Bank (when, as even you will admit, the euphoria had still not subsided), then fell silent.

            And note this: Schwebel ceased being a judge in 2000, which meant that he was free to renew his advocacy of an outrageously partisan legal argument.

            But 2000 is thirty years AFTER the euphoria of the Six Day War, and that euphoria has long since gone.

            Indeed, for many that euphoria has been replaced with a sickening realization that Israel isn’t a goodie-two-shoes, and opinions (even legal opinions) might have to be revisited in light of that realization.

            So, was Schwebel still a true-believer when he was sitting on that bench? Was he still convinced by his own legal arguments of 1970?

            I don’t know.
            Gustav doesn’t know.

            We can’t know because Schwebel fell silent in 1980 and still hasn’t found his voice again, even though he has had 14 years now to find it.

            You are placing a lot on the arguments of “Stephen Schwebel, lawyer-for-hire” writing about the world as he saw it 44 years ago.

            Good for you.

            But DON’T claim that you are presenting the arguments of “judge Stephen Schwebel of the ICJ”.

            You are doing no such thing, precisely because “judge Stephen Schwebel of the ICJ” was utterly silent on this issue during the entire 20 years of his judgeship, and is still silent 14 years later.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Wow what a dishonest little shit …

            Bubble boy reposts posts which were already answered but edits my answers then rehashes his tired old arguments, here is my full reply again …

            Wow, the ICJ huh?

            I mockingly brought them up to illustrate the fact that the eternal critics of Israel were not even confident enough to approach a stacked politicised UN body like the ICJ about the so called settlements. Yes that tells a story.

            The fact that despite that, the ICJ saw fit to exceed it’s brief and commented about the “settlements” anyway illustrates the type of body that it is. It is politicised up to it’s eyeballs. No self respecting legal body would do what the ICJ did. It opined about something which it wasn’t even asked about. A bit like in a case of larceny, a court would rule about a wife beating.

            The list is far too long for me to mention all the things that were wrong with that ICJ opinion which was non binding. The link below lists all the flaws of the ICJ’s advisory OPINION…

            http://www.mythsandfacts.org/replyonlineedition/chapter-9.html

            So, I am still waiting for a REAL legal binding resolution that backs your accusations up, Bubbleboy. Haven’t got one? Then all you have are opinions and counter opinions. Not proof or vindication of your case.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “I mockingly brought them up to illustrate the fact that the eternal critics of Israel were not even confident enough to approach a stacked politicised UN body like the ICJ about the so called settlements.”

            Dude, they have ALREADY achieved that which you claim they are too scared to attempt.

            The ICJ has ALREADY considered the illegality of those settlements as part of its deliberations on this wall.

            I’ve already QUOTED you the portions of the AO where the court says that
            (a) the West Bank is under a belligerent occupation, and
            (b) Geneva Convention IV is de jure applicable to this occupation, and
            (c) These Israeli colonies are most definitely a gross violation of that Convention.

            Are you honestly going to claim that the states who voted in the UNGA for that request to the ICJ Did Not Expect that the court would come to those conclusions?

            Really??????

            Dude, they had not the slightest doubt – None. Zip. Zero – that referring the question of the wall to the ICJ would produce exactly that result.

            Because – du’oh! – that was exactly the result they wanted and – double du’oh! – that’s precisely why they submitted that question.

            Honestly, you really should step outside yourself for a moment and listen to your own nonsense.

            Gustav: They Are Too SCARED To Seek Such A Statement From The Court!
            Me: They’ve Already Got Exactly That Statement From The Court.

            The correct response is….
            Gustav: Ahh, err, OK, right you are then….

            But I suspect very much that you’ll just keep shouting….
            Gustav: No they haven’t! Never! They’re Not Man Enough! Hurrumph! Hurrumph!

            Sorry, dude, but that horse has already bolted….

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: …”a stacked politicised UN body like the ICJ”…

            Ah, OK, so now it is the court itself that Gustav claims to be a “stacked politicised body”….

            I’m assuming that he isn’t attempting “guilt by association” e.g. that the court is tainted merely because it interacts with those organizations (*cough* *cough* UNGA *cough*) that Gustav treats with distain.

            Soooo, let’s see.

            First things first: an unqualified political apparatchik can’t be pitchforked onto the court bench.

            The judges must come from a list provided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which is a longstanding non-partisan, non-UN body.

            So, no joy there.

            But the “winning” candidates, are they elected or are they appointed by some secret cabal?

            Well, actually, they are elected.

            Damn.

            OK, OK, but is the election “stacked”?

            Does one group (in Gustav-world, it would be the “anti-Semite group”) use its massive numbers to ensure its domination of the composition of the bench?

            Err, no, sorry.

            The split has to be this:
            5 Judges from “the West”
            3 Judges from Africa
            2 Judges from “Eastern Europe”
            3 Judges from Asia

            Looking at that and – heck, who woulda’ thunk’ it! – if any “bias” is going to happen it’s going to be a “pro-Israel” one.

            Obviously so, since the split produces:
            a) 7 from “The West + East Europe”
            versus only:
            b) 5 from “Africa + Asia”.

            Still, there’s no pleasing some people.

            The Court just keeps on making its decisions based on “the law”, and not based on “what Gustav wants”.

            The only explanation must be that the court is a “stacked and politicised” body.

            Goodness knows it can’t be because “Gustav is wrong”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”The judges must come from a list provided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which is a long standing non-partisan, non-UN body.”

            Is the ICJ likely to be stacked by people-Arab, Anti-Israel judges?

            Well, let’s see how are the Judges elected to serve on the ICJ? This is how …

            The General Assembly and the Security Council proceed, independently of one another, to elect five members of the Court.

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_judges_election,_2011#Election_procedure

            Even BUBBLEBOY conceded that the UN General Assembly is a politicised body yet their vote is essential to get any Judge elected. So guess what kinds of Judges would they tend to elect?

            … good guess, the kinds of judges who would be willing to push the wheel-barrow of the UN General Assembly. What wheel-Barrow? … well, many wheel-barrows to be sure … but one of the favorite wheel-barrows of the UN General Assembly is their pro-Arab, anti-Israel wheel barrow. So it would be a reasonable assumption that there would be a tendency to elect judges who fit that profile. Perhaps not 100% of the time but more often than not …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Even BUBBLEBOY conceded that the UN General Assembly is a politicised body yet their vote is essential to get any Judge elected.”

            !!!!!

            Do you have the slightest idea how Lawyers get to be Judges, Gustav?

            Even the slightest idea?

            Look at the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

            Do those judges need the vote of a political body to get there?

            Yes, the US Senate must confirm the appointment.

            [Note, in passing, that there is no equivalent of the Permanent Court of Arbitration here. The POTUS can nominate any unqualified political flunky he things he can ram past the Senate.]

            And what about the Supreme Court in you beloved Israel?

            Any political body involved in that appointment?

            Hell yeah, there is. Four out of the nine members of the selection committee comes from the Knesset.

            Your argument is baseless, Gustav, because representation on the court is “weighted” i.e. various geo-political blocks are guaranteed a percentage of seats on the court.

            That “weighting” prevents any domination of the court i.e. Africa and Asia together only get 6 of the 15 judges, even though they have the numbers in the UNGA to outvote ANY rival grouping.

            That weighting makes it impossible for an overwhelmingly “anti-Israel block” to dominate the court.

            It simply can’t be done, even *if* the UN General Assembly itself is overwhelmingly anti-Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “The fact that despite that, the ICJ saw fit to exceed it’s brief and commented about the “settlements” anyway illustrates the type of body that it is.”

            Utter nonsense.

            The brief was this: “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”

            The court started with the most relevant question: why is that wall following the route that it does?

            (hint, to surround these Israeli colonies)

            It then asked this: what are those colonies? Why are they there? Are they legal?

            And the court is perfectly entitled to ask those questions, precisely because they have a direct bearing on the question of the legal consequences of a wall built to “defend” those colonies.

            And the court was correct on all counts: these Israeli colonies are ILLEGAL, and therefore any wall built to “defend” them is likewise ILLEGAL

            The court was quite correct to point out that Israel has a perfectly LEGAL means of “defending” the colonists i.e. it can remove them from this occupied territory, relocate them back inside Israel, and then build the wall there.

            Doing that is all perfectly LEGAL in the opinion of the court.

            You really do have some funny ideas e.g. the court should refuse to consider the legality of the very thing that Israel claims it is “legally self-defending”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “The court was quite correct to point out that Israel has a perfectly LEGAL means of “defending” the colonists i.e. it can remove them from this occupied territory, relocate them back inside Israel, and then build the wall there.”

            Straw man alert …

            BS Bubbleboy. The fence was constructed to defend all Israelis.

            The fence was built in response to a bloody suicide bombing campaign which was waged by your saint Palestinians between 2000 and 2006.

            The bombs were not going off in the “settlements” because the armed settlers know how to defend themselves. They were going off in downtown Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem, Netanya and such places.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “BS Bubbleboy. The fence was constructed to defend all Israelis.”

            Gustav, you really do need to read the Advisory Opinion.

            The ICJ was considering the Legal Consequences Of The Construction Of A Wall IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY.

            It wasn’t considering the Legal Consequences Of The Construction Of A Wall, full stop.

            The ICJ was quite clear on that point: where the wall is built on the Green Line then it is perfectly legal, there are zero “Legal Consequences” in Israel doing exactly that for the purpose of “defending all Israelis”.

            Get it?

            The ICJ found “legal consequences” whenever and wherever Israel looped that wall INTO the West Bank in order to “defend Israeli colonies”.

            That’s illegal, because the colonies themselves are illegal.

            The correct remedy for the danger that the colonists are exposed to(and note that the ICJ does not dispute that the COLONISTS are in harm’s way) is to…. remove them from harm’s way by returning them to Israel.

            But it is illegal to attempt to keep them out of harm’s way by looping a Whopping Big Wall around them, precisely because that serves *two* purposes:
            a) Protecting the COLONISTS
            *and*
            b) Entrenching and perpetuating the COLONIES

            The court is quite correct: the second purpose is illegal, and that’s A VERY BIG LEGAL CONSEQUENCE INDEED i.e. the wall is illegal wherever it loops around an illegal Israeli colony.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BS Alert.

            Building the wall smack on the green line would have had plenty of consequences. For one, much of the wall would have been on low lands overlooked by hills. As such, snipers would have found it much easier to take pot shots at passing Israeli motorists. And secondly, the wall would have had to have been much longer and therefore much more expensive. Why should Israeli taxpayers have had to foot the extra bill for the bloody mindedness of Arab terrorists? There were other reasons too but I’ll be fucked if I am interested in taking the trouble to educate you about it. You would ignore what I say anyway. So the above two reasons will do for now.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Building the wall smack on the green line would have had plenty of consequences”

            Not LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.

            Gustav: “For one, much of the wall would have been on low lands overlooked by hills.”

            That’s not a LEGAL CONSEQUENCE.

            Gustav: “And secondly, the wall would have had to have been much longer and therefore much more expensive.”

            And, again, that’s not a LEGAL CONSEQUENCE.

            Gustav: “Why should Israeli taxpayers have had to foot the extra bill for the bloody mindedness of Arab terrorists?”

            And that’s a very interesting POLITICAL question, but it is not a LEGAL question.

            Gustav: “So the above two reasons will do for now.”

            And they both fail, because neither addresses a LEGAL CONSEQUENCE of building a wall *here* rather than *there*.

            Get it through your skull: the court was asked its opinion of the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of building that wall inside this occupied territory, and the court (quite correctly) came up with well-reasoned advice regarding the LEGALITY of that wall, not the PRACTICALITY of that wall.

            Nobody asked them for their opinion on that latter issue, and it wouldn’t have accepted the request had they been asked.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Nobody asked them for their opinion on that latter issue, and it wouldn’t have accepted the request had they been asked.”

            Now you are talkin’ …

            Of course nobody did. That was one of the problems with the entire process. The UN GA was the party which brought the case to the ICJ. A corrupt, biased politicized pro Arab body. They were not interested in what Israel had to say or in Israeli lives. The entire briefing was geared to address only the needs and desires of the Palestinian Arabs.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Of course nobody did”

            Of course not. The ICJ can only give an advisory opinion on matters of International Law.

            It can not – and will not – give an opinion on matters of international diplomacy or politics.

            Gustav: “That was one of the problems with the entire process.”

            No, it isn’t a “problem” of the system, it is a “feature” of the system.

            The UNGA can not ask the ICJ to give its opinion on matters of politics, diplomacy, the structural problems of building walls on low soggy ground, the disgruntlement of much-detoured Israel motorists, or any other matter that is not a QUESTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

            Gustav: “The UN GA was the party which brought the case to the ICJ.”

            Indeed it did, and it is perfectly entitled to do so.

            But note that they didn’t “bring a case” to the ICJ.

            They “asked a legal question” of the ICJ, and the ICJ pondered that question and supplied its answer.

            Nothing. Wrong. With. Any. Of. That.

            Gustav: “A corrupt, biased politicized pro Arab body.”

            And this matters to the ICJ… how, exactly?

            The UNGA is entitled to ask the ICJ for advice on matters of International Law – there can be NO dispute that – and so the only thing the court has to satisfy itself on is this: Am I being asked a question about INTERNATIONAL LAW?

            If the answer is “Yes. Yes, I am” then the court is entitled to sit in deliberation and then supply its answer to that question.

            Gustav: “They were not interested in what Israel had to say or in Israeli lives.”

            Again, who is “they”?

            Whether (or not) the UNGA “cares about Israeli lives” is of no concern to the court, nor does it in any way affect its advice.

            It was asked a valid LEGAL question, and the court provided an opinion that was anchored 100% in International Law.

            That’s all it was asked, and that’s all that it answered.

            Everything else in your screed is 100% irrelevant, as they so often are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Repetition again huh? Ok…

            “Nobody asked them for their opinion on that latter issue, and it wouldn’t have accepted the request had they been asked.”

            Now you are talkin’ …

            Of course nobody did. That was one of the problems with the entire process. The UN GA was the party which brought the case to the ICJ. A corrupt, biased politicized pro Arab body. They were not interested in what Israel had to say or in Israeli lives. The entire briefing was geared to address only the needs and desires of the Palestinian Arabs.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ah, polemics.

            Gustav at his very best, apparently.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            A corrupt politicized organization …

            BUBBLEBOY:”And this matters to the ICJ… how, exactly?”

            If you need to ask then no answer of mine will satisfy you. But normal people get the message from your question!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “A corrupt politicized organization …”

            !!!!!

            You appear not to know something fundamental about the United Nations, Gustav.

            I’ll give you a hint: the UN is a political organization.

            So complaining that a political organization is “politicized” is, well, it just beggar’s belief.

            You may as well complain that Tigers Have Stripes and Leopards Have Spots.

            And complaining that the UNGA is “corrupt” is, well, an interesting point of view, and you are most welcome to it.

            But care to show me where the court agrees with your claim that the General Assembly is “corrupt”?

            Gustav: “If you need to ask then no answer of mine will satisfy you. But normal people get the message from your question!”

            Yeah, most people actually understand that the UN is a political organization, so they aren’t going to be shocked when it acts like…. a political organization.

            And, likewise, most people understand that when a political organization “organizes” itself in a way that is not to your liking then the cry of “Corrupt! Corrupt!” is going to rent the air.

            But such cries are just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

            The ICJ doesn’t care that **you** think the UNGA is corrupt, any more that it cares that **you** wouldn’t know a political organization if you tripped over it.

            On both counts that’s **your** problem, not **theirs**.

            They only have two things to worry about:
            A) Is the UNGA authorized to ask for an Advisory Opinion?
            B) Has the UNGA just asked a LEGAL question?

            The answer to both is “Yes”, and so the court is entitled to mull the question and supply the answer.

            Gustav: No! No! Don’t! Don’t deal with them! They Are Corrupt!!!
            ICJ: Did anyone just hear an annoying buzzing sound? Nah, me neither.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “So complaining that a political organization is “politicized” is, well, it just beggar’s belief.”

            You mean a bit like a wife complaining about a serial wife basher just beggars belief?

            Might be ok for the friends of the serial wife basher to say so …

            … as for the wife and her friends, not so much. Think about it Bubbleboy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “But care to show me where the court agrees with your claim that the General Assembly is “corrupt”?”

            This too, just like your other claims is an opinion and the opinions of many others.

            I guess you disagree though? Ok, I’ll live through it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Me: “But care to show me where the court agrees with your claim that the General Assembly is “corrupt”?”

            Gustav: “This too, just like your other claims is an opinion and the opinions of many others.”

            Such an….. odd…. reply, since it displays a level of disconnect that is…. almost disturbing.

            You castigated the court for dealing with an organization that **you** declared to be “corrupt”.

            It is more than reasonable to ask if you have any evidence that the ICJ shares **your** opinion regarding the “corruptness” of the UNGA.

            Because, in all honesty, if they DON’T then your complaint falls off them like water off a duck’s back.

            Gustav: “I guess you disagree though? Ok, I’ll live through it.”

            No, this is not a matter of “my disagreeing with you”, not at all.

            This is a matter of **you** castigating the **ICJ** for consorting with a “corrupt” organization, so the onus is on **you** to provide evidence that the court agrees that the General Assembly is, indeed, “corrupt”.

            Now, do you have any evidence, or don’t you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “This is a matter of **you** castigating the **ICJ** for consorting with a “corrupt” organization, so the onus is on **you** to provide evidence that the court agrees that the General Assembly is, indeed, “corrupt”.

            “Now do you have evidence or don’t you?”

            I have evidence. Am I going to discuss it with clowns like you? No!

            Why? Because it would be a waste of time. Narcissits like you don’t debate anything honestly.

            Now I eagerly await your lavishly crafted school boy theatrics in which you formulate your imagined conversations which you put into the mouths of those you argue with. I must admit, they are somewhat amusing in a twisted kind of a way. Maybe I am a bit perverse too.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “I have evidence.”

            Fantastic, because I was being to believe that you had just made a wild accusation that you couldn’t back up.

            So, if you please….

            Gustav: “Am I going to discuss it with clowns like you? No!”

            Sigh. So it was just a wild accusation all along.

            Disappointing, Gustav. Very, very disappointing.

            Gustav: “Why?”

            Because you have no evidence to support your accusation.

            Gustav: “Because it would be a waste of time.”

            No, it’s because you have no evidence to support your accusation.

            Gustav: “Narcissits like you don’t debate anything honestly.”

            Present your evidence, Gustav, and we’ll debate it honestly.

            I even pinky-promise not to laugh.

            Gustav: “Now I eagerly await your lavishly crafted school boy theatrics”….

            Nah, no need for that.

            You made a wild accusation, and when I asked you for the evidence to support it you refused.

            Flat out refused.

            Which says it all, really….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            UN Bias against Israel …

            “The figures are clear: between 2006 and 2013, Israel was condemned in 45 of the general resolutions, almost as many as the other 192 countries together. Next on the list was Myanmar with 10 resolutions against it. Israel was also condemned in 46 percent of resolutions devoted to specific countries; of the 12 emergency “special sessions” 2006-2009 relating to specific country situations, six were on Israel. All these resolutions were initiated by Arab states.
            The financial figures are equally instructive. In the year 2013 the financial amount UNHRC spent on Middle East countries showed the bias. It spent $367 million on Jordan, $362 million on Lebanon, $316 million on Syria, $ 293 million on Iraq, and $3 million on Israel.”

            Read more here …

            http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4852/un_bias_against_israel_continues

            And Google UN bias against Israel.

            Now, Bubbleboy will try to pretend and say … well gosh what do you want from the poor old UN … Why shouldn’t the UN condemn Israel more than anyone else if they behave worse than anyone else? Yeah right …200,000 dead in Syria, and still counting … Ukraine … Libya, ISIS … Sri Lanka … One could go on but why should I waste my time trying to convince idiots?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “UN Bias against Israel …”

            No, sorry, that’s a non-sequitur.

            You castigated the ICJ for consorting with a “corrupt” UN General Assembly.

            I asked if you had any evidence that the **ICJ** shares your view that the UN General Assembly was a “corrupt” body.

            Your “evidence” is therefore a non-answer, since it does not address the question.

            Care to try again?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            My answer was correct.

            The disproportianate attention given to Israel by the UN is a corrupt practice which perverts the purpose for the creation of the UN. Because the UN was not created for the sole benefit of the Arab people. And in particular, the Palestinian Arab people. Yet the Arabs managed to hijack the UN and use it as their own tool to punch Israel. Yet the UN neglects much bigger problems which exists elsewhere.

            A corrupt practice inanybody’s book except the books of Arab apologists like little old narcissistic you, Bubbleboy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “My answer was correct.”

            No, the question was this: Do you had any evidence that the ICJ considers the UN General Assembly to be a corrupt body?

            Gustav: “The disproportianate attention given to Israel by the UN is a corrupt practice which perverts the purpose for the creation of the UN.”

            That’s not an answer to my question.

            Nowhere do you provide evidence that the ICJ agrees with that proposition, and – du’oh! – that’s what you are being asked to provide.

            Gustav, use your brains for once.

            I’m not asking if **you** think that the UNGA is corrupt.

            I’m asking if you have any evidence that the **court** also shares that opinion.

            Apparently you have no evidence for that. None whatsoever, so I think it is an unavoidable conclusion that the court does NOT share your low opinion of the UNGA.

            In which case it is pointless castigating that court for consorting with the UNGA, precisely because as far as the court is concerned you are simply jeering and catcalling from the sidelines.

            You: Don’t talk to them, they are corrupt!!
            ICJ: We don’t agree.
            You: But I do! I do!
            ICJ: Yeah…. and…. so….?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Do I have evidence?

            Why yes, just look at my previous post.

            You don’t think that such a distorted voting pattern is evidence? Then tell us what that pattern means?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Do I have evidence?”

            sigh.

            You are now attempting your normal trick of refusing to acknowledge that a *specific* *question* has been posed to you.

            This one: “Do you had any evidence that the ICJ considers the UN General Assembly to be a corrupt body?”

            [Queue the inevitable response about me repeating myself]

            Gustav: “Why yes, just look at my previous post.”

            That being a post that didn’t actually address the question that has now been posed to him innumerable times.

            [Queue the inevitable response about me repeating myself]

            Gustav: “You don’t think that such a distorted voting pattern is evidence?”

            No, I don’t. Whether (or not) you can detect a “distorted voting pattern” in UNGA Resolutions is in no way “evidence” that the ICJ shares your belief that “the UN General Assembly is a corrupt body”.

            [Queue the inevitable response about me repeating myself]

            Gustav: “Then tell us what that pattern means?”

            It tells us that **you** are utterly convinced that “the UNGA is a corrupt body”.

            Of that there can be no doubt, least of all from me.

            It doesn’t tell us anything about whether (or not) the ICJ shares your conviction that the UNGA is a corrupt body.

            [Queue the inevitable response about me repeating myself]

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”No, I don’t. Whether (or not) you can detect a “distorted voting pattern” in UNGA Resolutions is in no way “evidence” that the ICJ shares your belief that “the UN General Assembly is a corrupt body”.

            Interesting.

            This bit of the discussion started by Bubbleboy demanding that I should furnish evedence that the UN General Assembly is corrupt.

            I was reluctant to continue that conversation because I knew that Bubbleboy has reached the stage where he does not want to debate. He just wants to score points and obfuscate. So I thought that responding to him would be pointless.

            But there was no avoiding
            Him. He was like a dog trying to hang onto a bone.

            So after I did respond, he proved exactly what I feared. He is obfuscating big time.

            I said that my statement about the UN General Assembly being corrupt corrupt is an OPINION based on evidence.

            The fact that at the insistence of the Arabs and their allies, the UN spends as much time discussing Israel as the rest of the world put together suggests either…

            1. That Israel is the worst problem faced by the whole of humanity.

            Or

            2. That the UN has been hijacked by the vested interests of the Arabs.

            I am suggesting that it is 2).

            But Bubbleboy now shifted the argument. He is suddenly suggesting that what I say does not suggest that the ICJ shares my belief that the UN General Assembly is corrupt. Where did that come from?

            Bubbleboy is now trying to conflate our earlier discussion which WAS about the ICJ. I said that the ICJ was fed garbage about Israel by the biased UN General Assembly and it was therefore inevitable that it churned out garbage. I used the phrase: GIGO, “Garbage in Garbage Out”. And it is undeniable that the brief to the ICJ, about the security fence was prepared by the UN General Assembly.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “This bit of the discussion started by Bubbleboy demanding that I should furnish evedence that the UN General Assembly is corrupt.”

            Demonstrably untrue. Not once did I ever ask Gustav for “evidence that the UNGA is corrupt”.

            Not. Once.

            I did, however, ask this question many, many, many times….

            Me: “But care to show me where the court agrees with your claim that the General Assembly is “corrupt”?” (Monday)

            Me: “It is more than reasonable to ask if you have any evidence that the ICJ shares **your** opinion regarding the “corruptness” of the UNGA.” (Monday)

            Me: “I asked if you had any evidence that the **ICJ** shares your view that the UN General Assembly was a “corrupt” body.” (Tuesday)

            Me: “No, the question was this: Do you had any evidence that the ICJ considers the UN General Assembly to be a corrupt body?” (Tuesday)

            Me: “I’m not asking if **you** think that the UNGA is corrupt. I’m asking if you have any evidence that the **court** also shares that opinion.” (Tuesday)

            Me: “This one: ‘Do you had any evidence that the ICJ considers the UN General Assembly to be a corrupt body?’ ” (Tuesday)

            Yet despite asking that same question many, many, many times Gustav still refuses to acknowledge that the question has even been posed to him, let alone has he made the slightest effort to answer it.

            [Queue the inevitable response about me repeating myself]

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”I did, however, ask this question many, many, many times….
            Me: “But care to show me where the court agrees with your claim that the General Assembly is “corrupt”?” (Monday)”

            OK, I looked back and I concede that BUBBLEBOY is right. He DID ask that question. But it seems that I misunderstood his question right from the beginning. Don’t ask me why because now that I read his question it is quite clear. But I really understood his question to be requesting that I should furnish evidence to back up my claim that the UN General Assembly is corrupt.

            That is what I indeed did by pointing to the fact that the UN spends disproportionate amount of time on Israel at the detriment of much more pressing problems which humanity faces.

            So … back to Bubbleboy’s above question which I consider to be an odd question indeed.

            Why exactly would I be looking for agreement by the court (I guess I now understand that by that he meant the ICJ) that the General Assembly is corrupt? First of all, I am already on the record of saying that the ICJ itself tends to be stacked by compliant judges. And secondly, theUN General Assembly is involved in the election of the ICJ judges so seeking the agreement of the judges about those involved in their appointment would be a circular logic. A bit like a snake grabbing a hold of it’s own tail and trying to swallow itself.

            Next silly question, Bubbleboy ….

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Why exactly would I be looking for agreement by the court (I guess I now understand that by that he meant the ICJ) that the General Assembly is corrupt?”

            sigh

            Does anyone else want to have a go at explaining the bleeding obvious to Gustav?

            Alright, I’ll do it. Once more. Yet again.

            Gustav, matey, you have complained about the court consorting with a “corrupt” organization i.e. the UNGA.

            That is, of course, an attempt at “guilt by association”, which is a ludicrous argument.

            But it is made ludicrous in the extreme if the court does not share your low opinion of the UNGA.

            Q: Why?
            A: Because if they don’t then your complaint is querulous.

            Here, an illustration.

            There is a WORLD of difference between this:
            Gustav: Don’t talk to them, they are corrupt!!!
            ICJ: Butt out, we love talking to corrupt bodies.

            And this:
            Gustav: Don’t talk to them, they are corrupt!!!
            ICJ: The UNGA isn’t corrupt, dimwit.

            The first raises (vague) questions about the court’s integrity (which, of course, was your aim) while the second poses (hard) questions about *your* judgement (heaven forbid, heh?)

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav, matey, you have complained about the court consorting with a “corrupt” organization i.e. the UNGA.”

            Not exactly.

            I have complained that the ICJ itself is stacked by politically selected judges who tend to perpetuate the dominant opinion of the UN General Assembly especially when they are fed a biased briefing by the UN General Assembly, as was the case with the security fence.

            I have also complained that the UN General Assembly is corrupt and is driven by the agenda of the powerful Arab/Muslim bloc in the UN at least when the topic is Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Me (earlier): ““Gustav, matey, you have complained about the court consorting with a “corrupt” organization i.e. the UNGA.””
            Gustav (now): “Not exactly.”
            Gustav (earlier): “The UN GA was the party which brought the case to the ICJ. A corrupt, biased politicized pro Arab body.”

            So, yeah, “exactly”.

            Gustav: “I have complained that the ICJ itself is stacked by politically selected judges who tend to perpetuate the dominant opinion of the UN General Assembly especially when they are fed a biased briefing by the UN General Assembly, as was the case with the security fence.”

            Yeah, that was your OTHER argument. You know, one of the many that you were flinging about in your scatter-gun approach to smearing anyone and everything that dares to say that Israel talks a Big Pile of BS.

            It is, of course, nonense.

            The list of judges is first drawn up by the independent and non-political Permanent Court of Arbitration i.e. you don’t even get to first base in the selection process if you are “political sycophants”, which is the accusation that Gustav is flinging at the full bench.

            Gustav has presented no evidence – none whatsover – that the bench is “stacked”, or that the court produces opinions that “perpetuate the dominant opinion of the UN General Assembly”.

            Note, also, that Gustav insists that the court was “fed a biased briefing” which, of course, is nonsense.

            1) The court was “asked a question”, it was not “fed a brief”
            2) The question was this: Give us your opinion on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”

            Care to explain how that is a “biased” question?

            After all, there is that wall and, yep, it sure is “being constructed”.
            And there is no question – none whatsoever – that this wall in carving through the West Bank.

            The legality of all that is *rather* *suspect*, so I can’t see how it is “bias” to ask the court to give its opinion regarding the “legal consequences” of this wall-building-frenzy.

            Gustav: “I have also complained that the UN General Assembly is corrupt and is driven by the agenda of the powerful Arab/Muslim bloc in the UN at least when the topic is Israel.”

            And – goodness me! – how you have complained. And complained. And complained.

            But you haven’t actually provided any evidence for “corruption”, which you appear to conflate (incorrectly) with “bias”.

            And – let’s be perfectly frank here – it is rather hollow to complain that a political organization is being “agenda driven” by politics. What else did you expect a political organizaiton to be “driven by”?

            You might as well complain that a “propeller-driven plane” is driven by “propellers”, or a “steam engine” is being driven by “steam”.

            Here’s a little secret, Gustav: You Don’t Have Then Numbers In The General Assembly.

            Which is annoying, I’m sure, but it’s also the nature of politics.

            Get over it, dude.

            After all, Israel does have the numbers in Congress, and far more thoroughly than the “Pro Arabs” have the numbers in the UNGA.

            So here’s an idea: I won’t complain about that if you stop complaining about the UNGA.

            Deal?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “But I really understood his question to be requesting that I should furnish evidence to back up my claim that the UN General Assembly is corrupt.”

            Note (again) that Gustav is claiming to have evidence that the UNGA is c.o.r.r.u.p.t.

            Gustav: “That is what I indeed did by pointing to the fact that the UN spends disproportionate amount of time on Israel at the detriment of much more pressing problems which humanity faces.”

            Note again that Gustav is claiming to have provided evidence to support the proposition that the UNGA is b.i.a.s.e.d.

            [queue the inevitable response that I have just repeated myself]

            Now, here is a new wrinkle: do I have any evidence that Gustav understands that “corrupt” has a different meaning to “biased”?

            Why, yes.

            Yes, I do:
            Gustav, on Monday: “A corrupt, biased politicized pro Arab body.”

            That is someone who is claiming that the UNGA is “corrupt” AND “biased” AND “politicized” AND “pro Arab”.

            Soooooo, both Gustav and I are on (rare) agreement that “corrupt” and “biased” are two different things.

            Sooooo, has Gustav produced any evidence – any evidence whatsoever – that the UNGA is “corrupt”?

            No, he has only proffered evidence to support his claim that the UNGA is “biased”.

            Really, you aren’t very good at this debating-stuff, are you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “But Bubbleboy now shifted the argument. He is suddenly suggesting that what I say does not suggest that the ICJ shares my belief that the UN General Assembly is corrupt. Where did that come from?”

            Where. Did. That. Come. From?

            FROM HERE:
            Me: “But care to show me where the court agrees with your claim that the General Assembly is “corrupt”?” (Monday)

            AND HERE:
            Me: “It is more than reasonable to ask if you have any evidence that the ICJ shares **your** opinion regarding the “corruptness” of the UNGA.” (Monday)

            AND HERE:
            Me: “I asked if you had any evidence that the **ICJ** shares your view that the UN General Assembly was a “corrupt” body.” (Tuesday)

            AND HERE:
            Me: “No, the question was this: Do you had any evidence that the ICJ considers the UN General Assembly to be a corrupt body?” (Tuesday)

            AND FROM ALL OF THE OTHER TIMES THAT I ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION AND GUSTAV DIDN’T ANSWER.

            Gustav’s querulous post illustrates Gustav’s approach to “debating” i.e. I ask him a straightforward question, Gustav then answers a question I didn’t ask, and when I point that out he complains that:
            a) I’m repeating myself, and
            b) I am changing the subject!

            [A moment’s thought will tell you that those are mutually-exclusive.]

            A moment’s thought will also tell you that what Gustav has just attempted is the straw-man argument.

            1) I pose a question to Gustav
            2) Gustav insists on answering a question of his own invention
            3) I point out that this wasn’t my question
            4) He accuses me of changing the subject.

            That’s the very dictionary definition of a “straw man argument”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “This bit of the discussion started by Bubbleboy demanding that I should furnish evedence that the UN General Assembly is corrupt.”

            NOTE THAT POINT: Gustav’s original claim was that the UN is “corrupt”.

            Gustav: “2. That the UN has been hijacked by the vested interests of the Arabs.
            I am suggesting that it is 2).”

            NOTE THAT POINT: Gustav has now changed his spots and is now claiming that he has evidence that the UN is “biased”.

            Yeah….. annnnnnnnnd?

            There is no question that the United Nations is a political organization.

            Just as there is no question that a political organization indulges in – gasp! – politics.

            Q: Is there “bias” in politics?
            A: Always. The side that Has The Numbers pushes *it’s* agenda, precisely because That’s What Politics Is.

            Q: So is “bias” in any way “evidence” of corruption?
            A: No, but claiming otherwise is excellent evidence that You Don’t Have The Numbers.

            Honestly, Gustav, grow up.

            Complaining that a political organization shows “bias” is about as smart as whining when politicians play politics.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You mean a bit like a wife complaining about a serial wife basher just beggars belief?”

            No, actually, a bit like someone complaining that a “political organization” is “politicized”

            Or a “musical” that features “music”.

            Or a “swimmer” who, darn ’em!, insists on “swimming”.

            Or a “judge” who keeps “adjudicating”.

            You know, that kinda’ stuff.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “You mean a bit like a wife complaining about a serial wife basher just beggars belief?”

            No, because “being bashed” is not an unavoidable consequence of “being a wife”.

            A much better fit would be thins one: a bit like a “wife” complaining that she’s “married”.

            You can’t be one (“wife”) without being the other (“married”).

            By way of very marked contrast it is perfectly possible to be a “wife” and not have a “husband who bashes her”.

            So, no, not at all like your analogy but, heh, thanks for playing.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            … Really Bubbleboy?

            The difference between you and me is that I don’t care about the nature of the beast. I care about what the one sided hypocritical beast (the UN) does to us.

            You on the other hand try to tell me to leave the beast alone because it can’t help itself (maybe it had a bad childhood?). That’s your problem, certainly not mine.

            And therefore I will do anything to give it a bad rap and perhaps in time persuade like minded people (not people like you of course) to kill the beast so you can cry rivers of tears and tell us how you miss it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “The difference between you and me is that I don’t care about the nature of the beast”

            Ah, yes, very poor choice of words there, Gustav.

            After all, the comparison that certain rabbis make between Goys and Beasts is well-known, so kudos to you for putting your foot in your mouth.

            I guess that eagerness to shove that shoe into your cake-hole explains all the pratfalls.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh goodie …

            So now we are down to what Rabbis say or don’t say.

            Can we now discuss what Mullahs and Sheiks say

            And maybe 9/11? And Arab terrorism worldwide and Jihad?

            And Lebanese boys from Sydney who obsess about the Middle East and wear their keyboards out 12 hours a day 7 days a week?

            Now that we are dragging everyone into this?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “So now we are down to what Rabbis say or don’t say.”

            No, we are down to poor choices of words that veer close to stereotypes.

            The word you chose was… poorly chosen, Gustav.

            I’m suggesting to you that you take a wee bit more care.

            Nothing more.
            No less.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “No, we are down to poor choices of words that veer close to stereotypes.”

            Yeah, Right …

            And who chose to stereotype? You did. Did you have to? Did anybody force your hand? Nah! But you did …

            “The word you chose was… poorly chosen, Gustav.”

            And that was your only motivation? You suddenly turned altruistic on me? My arse (a lovely phrase which I borrowed from you Bubbleboy).

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “And that was your only motivation? You suddenly turned altruistic on me?”

            I’m genuinely curious: what advantage do you think I was trying to gain when I pointed out to you that using the word “beast” was Not In Your Best Interests?

            No, really, I would like to know what dastardly plot you thought I was contriving when I suggested that That Was Not Wise, Gustav, Not Wise At All?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            O’megod, this guy is tiresome!

            Boooooooooring ….

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, RIght

            Gustav: “O’megod, this guy is tiresome! Boooooooooring ….”

            sigh

            I am perfectly happy to debate with you for as long as you want, precisely because I am convinced that the arguments that you keep putting forward are invariably and – demonstrably – wrong.

            But go back and look at your last post – there is no argument to be found in there.

            No claims, no propositions.

            There is nothing there but cheap and nasty sarcasm.

            Disappointing, Gustav, very disappointing.

            You do know that sarcasm is but a knave’s substitute for wit, don’t you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Disappointing, Gustav, very disappointing.”

            Oh gee, gosh, golly gosh even. I am soooooo sorry to have disappointed you. I feel like a knave. I just hope you will find enough kindness in your heart to forgive and forget.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Oh gee, gosh, golly gosh even. I am soooooo sorry to have disappointed you. I feel like a knave. I just hope you will find enough kindness in your heart to forgive and forget.”

            sigh.

            That post was the very dictionary-definition of “pointless”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Teally? And the last 100 posts of yours were incredibly insightful, full of meaning, were not intended to obfuscate and post for the sake of posting, right?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Teally?”

            Yes, “teally”.

            Gustav: “And the last 100 posts of yours were incredibly insightful, full of meaning, were not intended to obfuscate and post for the sake of posting, right?”

            Look back over those posts.

            Whether you agree with them or not (clearly you do not) those posts contained PROPOSITIONS i.e. they contained arguments that you were free to argue with for/against.

            Now, compare and contrast….
            Gustav: “Oh gee, gosh, golly gosh even. I am soooooo sorry to have disappointed you. I feel like a knave. I just hope you will find enough kindness in your heart to forgive and forget.”

            There is no “proposition” in there.

            No “argument”, no… nothin’.

            Pointless, in a word.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            True.

            But my meaningless post/s was/were responses to your equally meaningless post/s bubbleboy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “True”

            Thank you. Gustav has just conceded that my posts have “meaning” i.e. they contain arguments that he is at liberty to agree with or disagree with.

            Gustav: “But my meaningless post/s was/were responses to your equally meaningless post/s bubbleboy.”

            sigh.

            Did everyone just notice that Gustav did a backflip?

            As in: he agreed that my posts contained propositions, and now he insists that they did not.

            Man, hasn’t that just got “Gustav” written all over it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Or an idiot who is an idiot. But alas we digress …

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Translation: Israel does not have to abide by the int’l treaties that it signs.”

            Nope.

            Israel does not have to abide by the opinions and interpretations of what biased and self interested people think those treaties means.

            Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Oh, you’re just jealous. You can stop following me around now. Run off and play.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            Jealous of a rubberstampman like you Brian? Are you kidding? You are just a cuddly lap-dog to all the Israel bashers on this site. No one could be jealous of someone like you.

            Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          I don’t want to alarm you, Brian, but I think you are being stalked.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Yah it is amusing. Excited ankle biters. Yap yap yap!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The pot calling the kettle black again. Must be a habit around here. What are you doing here exactly Brian? Other than chirping in with your biased nonsense to help your new found buddy, Bubbleboy, out?

            And then they complain about Kiwi who is just giving you your own medicine.

            What’s the matta you guys, can’t you take a bit of ribbing from down under? Hey Bubbleboy, have you got something against Kiwis?

            Reply to Comment
    17. Brian

      Many of these questions are covered clearly here by Daniel Steiman in the Jerusalem Post:

      http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-settlements-are-illegal-under-international-law-336507

      It needs to be read in full.

      Steiman refers, moreover, to distinguished Israeli jurist Theodore Meron. Meron’s role in advising the government in 1967, the government’s deliberate ignoring of Meron’s advice, and Meron’s redoubled opinion today, is outlined here:

      https://web.archive.org/web/20080611213726/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/secret-memo-shows-israel-knew-six-day-war-was-illegal-450410.html

      A senior legal official who secretly warned the government of Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 that it would be illegal to build Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories has said, for the first time, that he still believes that he was right. …

      Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank – one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: “I believe that I would have given the same opinion today.”

      Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was ” sympathetic” to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers. …

      Judge Meron, 76, is now an appeal judge at the Tribunal. Speaking about his 1967 opinion for the first time, he also tells tomorrow’s Independent Magazine: “It’s obvious to me that the fact that settlements were established and the pace of the establishment of the settlements made peacemaking much more difficult.” …

      Reply to Comment
    18. Yeah, right

      Gustav: “And then they complain about Kiwi who is just giving you your own medicine”

      Err, no.

      Both Brian and I are debating you, Gustav.

      Kiwi is simply trolling Brian from the sidelines.

      There is a difference, even if you are hard-pressed to notice it.

      Gustav: “What’s the matta you guys, can’t you take a bit of ribbing from down under?”

      Oh, the irony….

      Gustav: “Hey Bubbleboy, have you got something against Kiwis?”

      No, they are our closest allies, in every sense of the word.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kiwi

        Brian is debating Gustav? How exactly. By faithfully rubber stamping every bit of nonsense which you utter?

        By the way, we might be the closest allies but that does not mean that I agree with every nonsense that someone like you promulgates.

        Reply to Comment
    19. Yeah, right

      Kiwi: “Brian is debating Gustav? How exactly. By faithfully rubber stamping every bit of nonsense which you utter?”

      Polemic. How tedious.

      Kiwi: “By the way, we might be the closest allies but that does not mean that I agree with every nonsense that someone like you promulgates.”

      Then you address your complaints to me, you don’t troll Brian for agreeing with me.

      A pretty simple concept, I would have thought.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kiwi

        “Then you address your complaints to me, you don’t troll Brian for agreeing with me.”

        Steady on mate! I will post my posts in here any which way I like. And I will post it to whoever I like whenever I like!

        Who do you think you are, lord Muck?

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Kiwi: “Steady on mate! I will post my posts in here any which way I like. And I will post it to whoever I like whenever I like!”

          Spoken like a true troll, but I will like to point out that Kiwi has just contradicted his previous post.

          You know, the one where he said….
          Kiwi: “By the way, we might be the closest allies but that does not mean that I agree with every nonsense that someone like you promulgates.”

          I would suggest that if he insists on addressing his posts to Brian then he ISN’T “disagreeing” with me, even though he has just insisted that he was “disagreeing” with me.

          Simple logic, but apparently too much for an easy-offended sheep-shagging troll.

          Apparently Kiwi trolls think that it is quite the done thing to “disagree” with me by… trolling someone else.

          Tell me, are you Tom, Bert, or William?

          Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            “I would suggest that if he insists on addressing his posts to Brian then he ISN’T “disagreeing” with me, even though he has just insisted that he was “disagreeing” with me.”

            WTF? Are you for real, mate? Go take your medications.

            “Simple logic, but apparently too much for an easy-offended sheep-shagging troll.”

            Easily offended sheep shagging who? Get a hold of yourself man. You don’t sound like any Aussie I know. They are an easy going bunch. You sound like a wound up little prick. Go f&$k yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Kiwi: “Go f&$k yourself.”

            I hear you get better results facing your sheep towards a cliff: they have to push back then, so you get a better result.

            Troll.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            It’s very strange. I gave my own opinion on Nov 29th in one concise paragraph or two. Then Gustav excitedly twists what I wrote into its opposite and excitedly asks “you wanna take it back?!…you wanna take it back?!….” (You know when your playing fetch with a border collie and it excitedly waits for you to throw the ball again, panting?) When I then throw the ball a few times in reply to a loooooooong drawn out debate within a debate on “What did Brian mean?” to clarify what Brian meant, I get accused then of “rubber stamp trolling.” The Aussie meanwhile has turned out to be an ankle biter of the rougher sort than I initially gathered. And more sensitive. It is amusing is it not, these fellows ask if aw shucks can’t we take a bit a good ol’ ribbing from down under but get all hot and bothered in re-reply. You can positively see the steam coming out of their ears.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Good old Brian. One can always trust him with the old lying and twisting things out of shape.

            He said something …

            I used that something in my post to Bubbleboy

            BUBBLEBOY then accused me of making up a straw man.

            Good old mr ‘Rubberstamp’ himself, Brian old buddy then claimed that he did not say what he said.

            I then showed him that he DID say it but he is perfectly welcome to take it back if “you wanna take it back” as I put it to him.

            And ever since then, these two idiots, Mr ‘Rubber Stamp’ and Bubbleboy are playing with it.

            Go on kiddies … play your silly little games about who said what to whom whenever then take it back. Massage it and call it gosh straw man.

            Enjoy your games kiddies. But don’t forget, others can play games too …

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Now Brian

            What was that again? What did you say about Americans?

            … ah I remember. You implied very strongly that ALL Anericans are Idiotic. And you vehemently denied that it was a racist or at least a very bigotted thing to say.

            Ah well. But you are such a moral human being. Even if decent normal self respecting Americans would probably call you a bigot for what you said. And rightly so!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BRIAN:”The Aussie meanwhile has turned out to be an ankle biter”

            Where did you say you are from again, Bubbleboy? Errr ummm I mean ankle biter …
            LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Gustav is obsessed. Five posts and counting. YR, “Aussie” = Kiwi, obviously. My error. I thought your reply to him quite funny. Oops, I just “rubber stamped” your reply to Kiwi! The horror! Call the rubber stamp police!

            Reply to Comment
    20. Gustav

      Hey Bubbleboy, you were rude to Kiwi so he returned the compliment. Get over it.

      Kiwi is no more a troll than Brian is. You just took an instant dislike to him because he does not agree with you. Hey, that happens too. Get used to it!

      Reply to Comment
    21. Gustav

      Oh and Bubbleboy,

      What about this idiot, JewMuslim who is spewing hate filled venom? You are awfully quiet sbout him. Is he not a troll?

      It seems that as usual, you are basing your accusations on the basis of who agrees or disagrees with you. Not on objective criteria. How transparent can you be, Bubbleboy.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Gustav: “What about this idiot, JewMuslim who is spewing hate filled venom?”

        Yeah, what about him?

        Gustav: “You are awfully quiet sbout him.”

        Yeah, I am, because I make a point of not reading his posts.

        Gustav: “Is he not a troll?”

        If you say so. I don’t read his posts, so I’m not in a position to form that opinion.

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah. right

        Gustav: “It seems that as usual, you are basing your accusations on the basis of who agrees or disagrees with you”

        Yeah, odd that…..

        Gustav: “Not on objective criteria.”

        In a talkback thread? Sorry, Gustav, I didn’t realize that written into the “Terms of Use” on 972.

        Shall we put that down as yet another document that you know all about but have never read?

        Gustav: “How transparent can you be, Bubbleboy.”

        Hmm, I take exception when people disagree with me, but I don’t appear to be the least bit fussed about people who don’t disagree with me.

        Yeah, odd that….. and not a little sinister, heh?

        Dimwit.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Not so odd …

          Most people don’t go about accusing others of being trolls just because they espouse different politics.

          But a few of you here, you included do!

          Don’t pretend that is normal behavior. It isn’t! It is the behavior of extremists. You are an exteremist Bubbleboy.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Most people don’t go about accusing others of being trolls just because they espouse different politics.”

            That’s not the reason why Kiwi is a troll, Gustav, and you know it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ok then tell us why he is a troll oh wise one …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Ok then tell us why he is a troll oh wise one …”

            KIWI:
            ———————————–
            “So Brian
            What do you want me to call you?
            a) A rubber stamp?
            Or:
            b) A cheer squad?”
            ———————————–
            “Patience?
            Your mate is Mr Patience himself. I think Gustav called him a robot. I actually think Gustav might have a point. I think he is a very very boring robot.”
            ———————————–
            “So says Rubber Stamp Man.”
            ———————————–
            “Jealous of a rubberstampman like you Brian? Are you kidding? You are just a cuddly lap-dog to all the Israel bashers on this site. No one could be jealous of someone like you.”
            ———————————–
            “Brian is debating Gustav? How exactly. By faithfully rubber stamping every bit of nonsense which you utter?”
            ———————————–

            Those are all the work of a troll, because each and every one of those posts is nothing but a personal attack on whomever it is that Kiwi has decided to insult.

            Indeed, in this entire lamentable talkback I can find only one post where Kiwi does not attempt to troll someone.

            Here:
            “Actually, Gustav, you forgot a very important additional word. Bias. They have biased opinions. A very bad combination.”

            A non-Trollish post. Well Done Mr Kiwi!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Thanks for the collection, Bubbleboy.

            Slightly out of context, aren’t they?

            One has to wonder who said what to provoke Kiwi into saying those things.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Slightly out of context, aren’t they?”

            No, most – if not all – were unsolicited interjections from Kiwi.

            Gustav: “One has to wonder who said what to provoke Kiwi into saying those things.”

            Apparently nobody has to say anything **TO** Kiwi to provoke his interjections, and when he does so they are pure 100% invective.

            Which all looks rather Trollish to me, Gustav.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            But what have those nobodies have been saying to others? It could be he took exception to what the nobodies were saying to others?

            Kiwi? What do you say?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “It could be he took exception to what the nobodies were saying to others?”

            Then he finds fault in what they are SAYING, he doesn’t launch himself into gratuitous insults regarding the people who are saying it.

            The former is “debate”, the latter is “trolling”.

            Gustav: “Kiwi? What do you say?”

            Don’t get your hopes up about rescue coming from that corner, Gutsav.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Wow you really got it in for poor Kiwi.

            He wasn’t that mean to you guys. Most of what he said was just innocent ribbing. Counter ribbing even. I thought some of it was funny and apt too. Except of course the F word but then again you were just as nasty towards him beforehand, Bubbleboy ..,

            Anyway, Kiwi over to you. You can speak for yourself. I ain’t talking anymore about this. It is getting boring.

            Reply to Comment
    22. phil

      Anyone notice how Kiwi often shows up when Gustav’s wound himself up in knots misquoting folks or resurrecting old threads to divert attention from the fact that he’s having his ass handed to him yet again?

      Strange coincidence

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Yea. What about you buddy? You always turn up like a bad smell to barrack for your co-religionists. Even on threads like these which are passe. Dead and burried. It betrays a certain lack of confidence in the so called “truth” which you people espouse if you need to habitually rubber-stamp each other’s positions no matter what actually transpires.

        No problems Phil. You won’t discourage me with your heckling and jackling. In fact you will reinforce my belief that I am on the right track since you are so desperate to try and discredit us.

        I must admit though the hypocrisy of you guys. That really gets me. Always with your silly accusations when you are probably the one who is guilty of the charge that you are levelling.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          This is an example of the type of sickening hypocrisy which I am talking about:

          BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

          This is vintage Bubbleboy hypocrisy.

          BEFORE THE ILLEGAL JORDANIAN INVASION
          ———————————
          East Jerusalem had both a Jewish and Arab population.

          After the invasion, the Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jewish population of East Jerusalem which was clearly an ILLEGAL act.

          AFTER ISRAEL’s DEFEAT OF THE JORDANINS IN A WAR OF SELF DEFENSE IN 1967 …
          ——————————–
          Bubbleboy insists that the original illegal act of ethnically cleansing the Jews of East Jerusalem, 19 years earlier, somehow changed the legalities and Palestinian Jews (Israelis) are no longer allowed to live in East Jerusalem.

          Unbelievable hypocrisy!

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            sigh

            You can not “correct” an illegal act by indulging in another illegal act.

            Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV unconditionally prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own citizens into an occupied territory.

            No ifs.
            No buts.
            No hang-on-what-abouts.

            Q: Were Jews ejected from East Jerusalem in 1948-49?
            A: Yes.

            Q: Did that represent an illegal act by Jordan?
            A: Yes.

            Q: Can Israel “undo” that illegal act?
            A: Not. While. It. Is. The. Occupying. Power.

            Q: Does that mean those Jews can never “return”?
            A: No, it doesn’t mean that at all.

            Q: When, then?
            A: Israel can negotiate that “return” as a line-item in the final status agreement, so those Jews “return” when the occupation ends.

            That is perfectly legal.
            That is perfectly reasonable.

            Q: So what’s the problem then?
            A: Israel has no intention of EVER ending this endless occupation.

            So what Gustav is demanding is quite illegal and very unreasonable i.e. that Israel carries out an act THAT IT IS PROHIBITED FROM CARRYING OUT and it does so in order to PERPETUATE AND ENTRENCH ITS OWN ILLEGAL ACTIONS.

            Sheesh. This is not rocket science.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Why do I get the distinct feeling that …

            Bubbleboy = Phil?

            And

            Phil = Bubbleboy?

            Suddenly out of the blue, Phil turns up on this dead and burried thread to bolster the flagging morale of himself?

            Bubbleboy’s above post speaks for itself. He sets one standard for us “the hated Zionists” and uses every slimy trick in the book to try and whitewash our enemies.

            Behold …

            “BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            This hypocrite preaches the above to us then he ignores his own preaching when it comes to his favorite team, the Saint Palestinians.

            This is what we argued for nearly 400 posts above and he brought his other persona named Phil to rehash the same old arguments again. Obviously he feels uncomfortable about how his arguments came across.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The Palestinian Jews (Israelis) were subjected to TWO illegal acts by Jordan.

            The first one in 1948 when all Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem by a combined force of the Jordanian army and Palestinian Arab militias.

            The second one in 1967 when Jordan again committed aggression but this time they lost East Jerusalem as a consequence of the war which THEY started.

            To then pretend that Israel is obliged to keep Jews Sent from my iPhone

            It is a pretence that the illegal act committed by Arabs in 1948, somehow turned East Jerusalem into an exclusively Arab city.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “To then pretend that Israel is obliged to keep Jews”…

            Oh, fer’ Pete’s sake.

            Israel is obliged to keep its OWN citizens out FOR AS LONG AS IT IS THE OCCUPYING POWER.

            That’s what the law says, so that’s what the law means.

            It doesn’t matter that those Israelis were “hard done by”.

            It doesn’t matter that those Israeli are “Jews”.

            None of that matters. They are ISRAELIS, and so as long as ISRAEL is the occupying power then ISRAEL is obliged to keep them out of there.

            If that’s a hardship for those who were ejected in 1948-49 (and, yeah, it is) then the only legal solution is obvious: End The Occupation.

            End the occupation and you END THE PROHIBITION.

            Honestly, this isn’t rocket science: you can’t break the law simply because That Is The Most Convenient Path For Israel.

            It gets back to the title of this article: Israel abides by int’l law… when it is convenient.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Gustav: “To then pretend that Israel is obliged to keep Jews from returning to a place which was a Jewish city for 2000 years then a mixed Arab Jewish city for another 1500 years”

            BUBBLEBOY “Oh, fer’ Pete’s sake.”

            You mean for your sake, or are you Peter?

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel is obliged to keep its OWN citizens out FOR AS LONG AS IT IS THE OCCUPYING POWER.”

            Only if we don’t apply your own rule. Here I quote again what YOU said …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            The expulsion and the keeping of the Jews out of East Jerusalem by the Arabs was an illegal act. Yet what you claim, perpetrates that reality which was achieved by an illegality.

            BUBBLEBOY:”That’s what the law says, so that’s what the law means.”

            Only if you look at the law selectively with the idea of looking after the Arabs but not Jews. Real law looks at things from the point of view of all the affected parties.

            BUBBLEBOY “It doesn’t matter that those Israelis were “hard done by”.

            It only matters if the Arabs (the ones who committed the original illegal act) are “hard done by”?

            BUBBLEBOY:”It doesn’t matter that those Israeli are “Jews”.

            None of that matters. They are ISRAELIS, and so as long as ISRAEL is the occupying power then ISRAEL is obliged to keep them out of there.”

            Again, only if you choose to apply the law selectively and ignore rules which you try and use against us when it suits you. Here, let me remind you your own rule again …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            And what was that reality again which was changed by the Arabs illegally in 1948?

            Reality: Jews lived in East Jerusalem since time immemorial till we were expelled by the Arabs illegally and kept out illegally till 1967.

            BUBBLEBOY:If that’s a hardship for those who were ejected in 1948-49 (and, yeah, it is) then the only legal solution is obvious: End The Occupation.”

            In order to end the “occupation” the party which was the aggressor (the Arabs) have to be willing to sign a formal peace deal which would formally declare that they would give up their aggressive intent against the Jewish state. Have they done that? NAH. Are they willing to do it? NAH.

            BUBBLEBOY:”End the occupation and you END THE PROHIBITION.”

            And you are putting the sole onus for ending the occupation on the party which defended itself lawfully from the other party which carried out illegal aggression against it. In other words you are trying to reward unlawful aggression.

            BUBBLEBOY:Honestly, this isn’t rocket science: you can’t break the law simply because That Is The Most Convenient Path For Israel.”

            Wow, so now you are claiming that the “occupation” is illegal? Since when is it illegal for one to defend oneself and hang on to territories till the other party formally declares that it has no more aggressive intentions?

            BUBBLEBOY:”It gets back to the title of this article: Israel abides by int’l law… when it is convenient.”

            In your dreams.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Why do I get the distinct feeling that …
            Bubbleboy = Phil?
            And
            Phil = Bubbleboy?”

            I Got No Idea why you have that feeling, but like so many of your other arguments it turns out to be wrong.

            I’ve never met Phil, and wouldn’t know him if I saw him in the street.

            But one thing I do know is this: I’m not him.

            I have no need of doppleganger’s to demolish your oh-so-lamentable arguments.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            1. The joint Jordanian Palestinian Arab ethnic cleansing of the Jews of East Jerusalem was an illegal act.

            2. The 1967 war of aggression by Jordan against Israel was an illegal act.

            3. Israel’s response to the 1967 war of aggression by Jordan and subsequent occupation of East Jerusalem was an act of self defense and it therefore was not illegal.

            Yet Bubbleboy expects Israel to perpetrate the 1948 illegal act of the Jordanians and their Palestinian Arab allies to keep Jews out of East Jerusalem in other words, change the legalities by perpetrating an illegal act.

            Although Bubbleboy tries to put a spin on his verdict by claiming that all Israel has to do is end the so called occupation of East Jerusalem and then the Jews would be allowed to return. But the question that it begs is end it HOW? By unilaterally withdrawing? Who would then take over? And why? And then the Jews would be allowed to return? If he believes that, then Bubbleboy believes in unicorns too. Alternatively, they should end it by negotiating a peace deal? Well HELLO, that is precisely what Israel has been trying to do. Since 2000, Israel made three separate peace offers to the Palestinian Arabs, in 2000, 2001 and 2008. None of those deals were accepted.

            So in the meanwhile, if one would listen to Bubbleboy, since 1948 to to this very day, East Jerusalem should have remained Jew free. Why? Because of Arab aggression and refusal to negotiate a peace deal? That would be rewarding their illegal act of aggression and ethnic cleansing of Jews.

            Oh but wait a minute … BUBBLEBOY says. All Israel has to do is to accept the dictates of the Arab aggressors and then supposedly Jews would be allowed to return to East Jerusalem. So again, what he really means is that Israel is obliged to reward aggression against itself and then, in theory at least, Jews could return to live in East Jerusalem. But we all know what would happen in practice, don’t we?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “But the question that it begs is end it HOW? By unilaterally withdrawing? ”

            Sorry, but I have already answered that question.

            Israel is the occupying power.
            Israel insists that it will NOT withdraw until a final status agreement is reach.

            OK, in which case Israel needs to include that issue in the negotiations, and it needs to insist that NO final status agreement can ignore this issue

            [Note, of course, that the PLO does insist on this w.r.t. Palestinian RoR, so they clearly understand this concept way better than Gustav]

            But what Israel is ***not*** entitled to do is to “jump the gun” i.e. to pre-empt that final status agreement by flooding East Jerusalem with ***any*** Israeli colonists for ***any*** reason or under ***any*** excuse merely because It Has Its Guns Pointed At The Palestinians.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV:“But the question that it begs is end it HOW? By unilaterally withdrawing? ”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Sorry, but I have already answered that question.”

            Israel is the occupying power.
            Israel insists that it will NOT withdraw until a final status agreement is reach.

            OK, in which case Israel needs to include that issue in the negotiations, and it needs to insist that NO final status agreement can ignore this issue”

            Yeah, Right and by doing that, Israel would aid and abet the prolonging the effects of an illegal act which was carried out by the Arabs in 1948 when they expelled the Jews of East Jerusalem.

            Yet what was it what you admonished us about, Bubbleboy?

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            How come that principle does not apply when it comes to the Arabs?

            BUBBLEBOY:”[Note, of course, that the PLO does insist on this w.r.t. Palestinian RoR, so they clearly understand this concept way better than Gustav]”

            Wow how dishonest can you be, Bubbleboy? The PLO does not control the territory so what they are doing is their only available choice.

            BUBBLEBOY “But what Israel is ***not*** entitled to do is to “jump the gun” i.e. to pre-empt that final status agreement by flooding East Jerusalem with ***any*** Israeli colonists for ***any*** reason or under ***any*** excuse merely because It Has Its Guns Pointed At The Palestinians.”

            In other words you advocate that Israel should uphold the change brought about by the illegal act perpetrated by the Arabs in 1948 when they expelled the Jews of East Jerusalem. Which is of course in conflict with what you preach to us …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            You are a hypocrite, Bubbleboy!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Yeah, Right and by doing that, Israel would aid and abet the prolonging the effects of an illegal act which was carried out by the Arabs in 1948 when they expelled the Jews of East Jerusalem.”

            No, not “aiding and abetting”.

            Quite the reverse i.e. Israel is prohibited from doing anything to “undo” that injustice WHILE IT REMAINS THE OCCUPYING POWER.

            It’s not a difficult concept, Gustav. All you need to do is to contemplate a sentence that begins with “I’d like to help, but my hands are tied….”

            Israel tied its own hands when it seized this territory by force, and the bindings around its wrists are called “The Geneva Conventions”.

            Gustav: “How come that principle does not apply when it comes to the Arabs?”

            Between 1949-1967 that principle **DID** apply to Jordan i.e. I have no problem accepting that Jordan’s ejection of those Jews was illegal.

            I got no problem acknowledging that fact, Gustav.

            But Jordan CEASED to be the occupying power in 1967, Israel replaced it, and BY REPLACING IT Israel became bound by the obligations contained in GCIV.

            You know: no Israeli, no way, no how.

            You just can’t get this through your skull, can you: the prohibition is UNCONDITIONAL, and the prohibition lasts FOR AS LONG AS YOU ARE OCCUPYING THIS TERRITORY.

            You are wrong, Gustav.
            You have always been wrong.
            Your arguments will always be wrong.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: -“Yeah, Right and by doing that, Israel would aid and abet the prolonging the effects of an illegal act which was carried out by the Arabs in 1948 when they expelled the Jews of East Jerusalem.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”No, not “aiding and abetting”.

            Yes, aiding and abetting. Because Israel would be upholding an illegal act (the expulsion of the Jews of East Jerusalem) which you seem to insist that it somehow changed the legalities. The legality that Jews lived in East Jerusalem since time immemorial.

            Quite the reverse i.e. Israel is prohibited from doing anything to “undo” that injustice WHILE IT REMAINS THE OCCUPYING POWER.

            Yet this is what you preach to us…

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            So no, your claim does not stack up with what you preach.

            BUBBLEBOY:”It’s not a difficult concept, Gustav. All you need to do is to contemplate a sentence that begins with “I’d like to help, but my hands are tied….”

            Yes,exactly. I’d like to help correct past illegal acts of our enemies … but after that you’ve got it wrong … the correct answer is that I will help to reverse past wrongs, the expulsion of East Jerusalem’s Jews by the Arabs.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel tied its own hands when it seized this territory by force, and the bindings around its wrists are called “The Geneva Conventions”.

            You are wrong about our “tied hands”, we are in control and using your own preaching, here it is again …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            We can reverse the illegality which was perpetrated against us in 1948 when the Arabs expelled the Jews of East Jerusalem.

            GUSTAV: “How come that principle does not apply when it comes to the Arabs?”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Between 1949-1967 that principle **DID** apply to Jordan i.e. I have no problem accepting that Jordan’s ejection of those Jews was illegal.

            I got no problem acknowledging that fact, Gustav.”

            You say you don’t but what you advocate is the perpatration of the illegal act which not just the Jordanians committed, but also the irregular armed forces of the Palestinians committed. Because they too were involved in the expulsion, in 1948, of their fellow Palestinians who happened to be Jewish.

            BUBBLEBOY:”But Jordan CEASED to be the occupying power in 1967, Israel replaced it, and BY REPLACING IT Israel became bound by the obligations contained in GCIV.”

            Come again? Are you saying that our war of self defense after Jordan attacked us in 1967 makes our presence in East Jerusalem illegal? And that therefore the Jews who used to live in Palestine since time immemorial should be punished?

            Reply to Comment
    23. phil

      Israel is more than welcome to send jews to your iPhone if that’s what you’re into..

      However, as has been explained to you umpteen times to the point where it’s not worth debating you, so I’ll simplify it yet again

      East Jerusalem = occupied

      Occupied = geneva conventions

      geneva = no colonising occupied land

      Send me your address and I’ll have it printed on a t-shirt so you can remember it.. I know it is three full sentences, but there’s not a lot of words in them so you should be able to manage with time

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “East Jerusalem = occupied

        Occupied = geneva conventions

        geneva = no colonising occupied land”

        If East Jerusalem is occupied, then who are it’s occupied people?

        You would claim it is ONLY the Palestinian Arabs.

        But my question is how come East Jerusalem became an exclusively Arab city, according to you people?

        ANSWER: as a result of an illegal act committed by Jordan and their Palestinian Arab allies in 1948.

        But your claim was that an illegal act cannot change the legalities. I guess you guys argue that only when that idea favors your Saint Palestinians. But when the shoe is on the other foot, that does not apply, huh?

        PS
        You are very funny with your iPhone comment. I prepared my response off line and the message got corrupted. You like to make mileage out of that? Be my guest. Enjoy your juvenile attempt at humor.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Gustav: “If East Jerusalem is occupied, then who are it’s occupied people?”

          Ahem. Once more with the lesson for Gustav….

          GCIV is the convention “Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”

          Soooo, who are the “civilian persons” that this convention seeks to “protect”?

          Article 4: “Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”

          Soooo, do the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank meet that definition?

          Yeah, they most certainly do.

          Soooo, do the Israeli Jews who are “returning” to East Jerusalem meet that definition?

          Nope, they most certainly do not.

          Why not?

          Answer: They are “in the hands of” an occupying power to which “they are nationals”.

          Sorry, Gustav, but you are talking nonsense. Again.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “If East Jerusalem is occupied, then who are it’s occupied people?”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Ahem. Once more with the lesson for Gustav….”

            Oh, no … Mr school teacher again. How tiresome …

            BUBBLEBOY:”GCIV is the convention “Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”

            Yes, and it was not designed to punish civilians (Palestinian Jews) against whom an illegal act was carried out by the very people which you now claim to want to protect (the Arabs).

            BUBBLEBOY:”Soooo, who are the “civilian persons” that this convention seeks to “protect”?

            Article 4: “Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”

            Soooo, do the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank meet that definition?”

            Yea and what exactly are they being protected from?

            ANSWER: restoration of the civilian rights (of the Jews) which were broken by an illegal act by the very civilians (the Arabs) which you want to protect. You have a very selective and jaundiced view of the law.

            Here is why you are selective with your interpretation of the law. Because you ignore your own interpretation of the law when it suits you. Let me quote what you preached to us again …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            … but now BUBBLEBOY you are insisting that the illegal expulsion of the Jews by the Arabs in 1948 must be upheld by Israel. In other words you advocate that an illegal act should change the realities.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Yes, and it was not designed to punish civilians (Palestinian Jews) against whom an illegal act was carried out by the very people which you now claim to want to protect (the Arabs).”

            Now is the time to point out to Gustav that the events that led to the expulsion of “Palestinian Jews” took place before the entry into force of the Geneva Conventions.

            Sorry, dude, but those Israelis are **not** “protected persons” under the plain definition of Article 4 of GCIV.

            Never have been.
            Never will be.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Yes, and it was not designed to punish civilians (Palestinian Jews) against whom an illegal act was carried out by the very people which you now claim to want to protect (the Arabs).”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Now is the time to point out to Gustav that the events that led to the expulsion of “Palestinian Jews” took place before the entry into force of the Geneva Conventions.

            Sorry, dude, but those Israelis are **not** “protected persons” under the plain definition of Article 4 of GCIV.”

            Then one has to guess that the same rule applies to Palestinian Arab refugees who fled or were expelled from their homes at the same time.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Never have been.
            Never will be.”

            Fine, then please remember what you are saying here about Jewish refugees from East Jerusalem the next time you sound off and insist that Israel is obliged to allow them to return to live amongst us.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “but now BUBBLEBOY you are insisting that the illegal expulsion of the Jews by the Arabs in 1948 must be upheld by Israel.”

            No, nothing of the sort.

            I am insisting something quite different i.e. that “Israel, the occupying power” is prohibited from doing anything about that injustice WHILE IT REMAINS THE OCCUPYING POWER.

            Israeli: I was ejected from East Jerusalem! I want to return!Israel: I sympathise, really, I do, but my hands are tied.
            Israeli: When, then! When!!!!
            Israel: When I end this occupation, dude, just be patient coz’ I’m working on it.

            The only bit in that exchange that is untrue is the very last bit i.e. Israel has no intention of “ending the occupation”.

            Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too i.e. it wants to keep the occupation going SO THAT it can keep colonizing this territory.

            That’s a crime. A war crime.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “but now BUBBLEBOY you are insisting that the illegal expulsion of the Jews by the Arabs in 1948 must be upheld by Israel.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”No, nothing of the sort.”

            Doth thou protest too much. That is exactly what you are insisting on.

            BUBBLEBOY:”I am insisting something quite different i.e. that “Israel, the occupying power” is prohibited from doing anything about that injustice WHILE IT REMAINS THE OCCUPYING POWER.”

            In other words, you contradict your own preaching to us…

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            The original illegal act was the expulsion of the Jews by the Arabs.

            And you insist that such an illegal act, changed the legalities.

            An illegal act was committed by the Arabs and therefore …

            … according to you, Jews cannot return to East Jerusalem.

            Hypocrisy at it’s best …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israeli: I was ejected from East Jerusalem! I want to return!Israel: I sympathise, really, I do, but my hands are tied.”

            But our hands are not tied. After all we now control East Jerusalem after we gained control of it through a war of self defense in 1967.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israeli: When, then! When!!!!

            Non sequitur. Now. We have already returned to where we lived since time immemorial.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel: When I end this occupation, dude, just be patient coz’ I’m working on it.”

            Israel cannot end the “occupation” on it’s own. The Arabs have to first renounce their policy of aggression against the Jewish state and sign a formal peace treaty first. And since they have been dragging their feet, we won’t be penalising Jews any longer by preventing them from living where we lived since time immemorial.

            BUBBLEBOY:”The only bit in that exchange that is untrue is the very last bit i.e. Israel has no intention of “ending the occupation”.

            Funny that. Ever since 1967 Israel requested recognition of the Jewish state and a formal peace treaty. But the Arabs refused.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too i.e. it wants to keep the occupation going SO THAT it can keep colonizing this territory.”

            No, we just want OUR share of the cake.

            BUBBLEBOY:”That’s a crime. A war crime.”

            Only in Bubble-World.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Yeah, Right and by doing that, Israel would aid and abet the prolonging the effects of an illegal act which was carried out by the Arabs in 1948 when they expelled the Jews of East Jerusalem.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”No, not “aiding and abetting”.

            Yes, aiding and abetting. Because Israel would be upholding an illegal act (the expulsion of the Jews of East Jerusalem) which you seem to insist that it somehow changed the legalities. The legality that Jews lived in East Jerusalem since time immemorial.

            Quite the reverse i.e. Israel is prohibited from doing anything to “undo” that injustice WHILE IT REMAINS THE OCCUPYING POWER.

            Yet this is what you preach to us…

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            So no, your claim does not stack up with what you preach.

            BUBBLEBOY:”It’s not a difficult concept, Gustav. All you need to do is to contemplate a sentence that begins with “I’d like to help, but my hands are tied….”

            Yes,exactly. I’d like to help correct past illegal acts of our enemies … but after that you’ve got it wrong … the correct answer is that I will help to reverse past wrongs, the expulsion of East Jerusalem’s Jews by the Arabs.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel tied its own hands when it seized this territory by force, and the bindings around its wrists are called “The Geneva Conventions”.

            You are wrong about our “tied hands”, we are in control and using your own preaching, here it is again …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            We can reverse the illegality which was perpetrated against us in 1948 when the Arabs expelled the Jews of East Jerusalem.

            GUSTAV: “How come that principle does not apply when it comes to the Arabs?”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Between 1949-1967 that principle **DID** apply to Jordan i.e. I have no problem accepting that Jordan’s ejection of those Jews was illegal.

            I got no problem acknowledging that fact, Gustav.”

            You say you don’t but what you advocate is the perpatration of the illegal act which not just the Jordanians committed, but also the irregular armed forces of the Palestinians committed. Because they too were involved in the expulsion, in 1948, of their fellow Palestinians who happened to be Jewish.

            BUBBLEBOY:”But Jordan CEASED to be the occupying power in 1967, Israel replaced it, and BY REPLACING IT Israel became bound by the obligations contained in GCIV.”

            Come again? Are you saying that our war of self defense after Jordan attacked us in 1967 makes our presence in East Jerusalem illegal? And that therefore the Jews who used to live in Palestine since time immemorial should be punished?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav, this is a very simple principle of law: you can not “undo” an illegal act by way of an illegal act.

            That is not allowed.

            I do not dispute – not for a second – that any Jew who was ejected from East Jerusalem in 1949 had an injustice done to them.

            I do not dispute – not for a second – that those Jews have a legitimate claim for recompense for the harm that was done to them.

            But what I do dispute is that ***ISRAEL*** has any standing to do anything about that WHILE IT REMAINS THE OCCUPYING POWER.

            So sorry, Gustav, but “Israel, the occupying power” has no standing whatsoever, because IHL unconditionally prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own citizens into an occupied territory.

            That does not mean that those “1949 Jews” have lost their rights. They haven’t.

            That does not mean that those “1949 Jews” can never return or can never seek restitution. They can.

            But what it does mean is that FOR AS LONG AS ISRAEL INSISTS ON OCCUPYING THIS TERRITORY then those “1949 Jews” have to cool their heals.

            They don’t like that?

            Too bad, the fault lies with ISRAEL, because it is Israel that refuses to ever end this endless occupation.

            YOU don’t like that?

            Too bad, the fault lies with ISRAEL, because it is Israel that refuses to ever end this endless occupation.

            Honestly, Gustav, you are incapable of comprehending a very, very simple concept: an unconditional prohibition is a prohibition that is “not conditional”.

            You can’t come up with excuses why that prohibition DOESN’T apply to you because – du’oh! – that makes and “unconditional prohibition” into a “prohibition that is conditional”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”Gustav, this is a very simple principle of law: you can not “undo” an illegal act by way of an illegal act.

            GUSTAV: “but now BUBBLEBOY you are insisting that the illegal expulsion of the Jews by the Arabs in 1948 must be upheld by Israel.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”No, nothing of the sort.”

            Doth thou protest too much. That is exactly what you are insisting on.

            BUBBLEBOY:”I am insisting something quite different i.e. that “Israel, the occupying power” is prohibited Sent from my iPhone
            BUBBLEBOY:”Israeli: When, then! When!!!!

            Non sequitur. Now. We have already returned to where we lived since time immemorial.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel: When I end this occupation, dude, just be patient coz’ I’m working on it.”

            Israel cannot end the “occupation” on it’s own. The Arabs have to first renounce their policy of aggression against the Jewish state and sign a formal peace treaty first. And since they have been dragging their feet, we won’t be penalising Jews any longer by preventing them from living where we lived since time immemorial.

            BUBBLEBOY:”The only bit in that exchange that is untrue is the very last bit i.e. Israel has no intention of “ending the occupation”.

            Funny that. Ever since 1967 Israel requested recognition of the Jewish state and a formal peace treaty. But the Arabs refused.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too i.e. it wants to keep the occupation going SO THAT it can keep colonizing this territory.”

            No, we just want OUR share of the cake.

            BUBBLEBOY:”That’s a crime. A war crime.”

            Only in Bubble-World.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Honestly, Gustav, you are incapable of comprehending a very, very simple concept: an unconditional prohibition is a prohibition that is “not conditional”.

            I comprehend your concept alright. It is this …

            Either Israel gives in to Arab blackmail about how Arabs want a peace to “look like” which would be just a stepping stone to their next war of aggression against us …

            Or

            … The “occupation” would continue and Israel would get blackmailed into not allowing Jews to return to East Jerusalem which in turn would punish Jewish civilians for illegal act which the Arabs committed in 1948 and 1967.

            No cigar, Bubbleboy!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”Gustav, this is a very simple principle of law: you can not “undo” an illegal act by way of an illegal act.

            GUSTAV: “but now BUBBLEBOY you are insisting that the illegal expulsion of the Jews by the Arabs in 1948 must be upheld by Israel.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”No, nothing of the sort.”

            Doth thou protest too much. That is exactly what you are insisting on.

            BUBBLEBOY:”I am insisting something quite different i.e. that “Israel, the occupying power” is prohibited from doing anything about that injustice WHILE IT REMAINS THE OCCUPYING POWER.”

            In other words, you contradict your own preaching to us…

            BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            The original illegal act was the expulsion of the Jews by the Arabs.

            And you insist that such an illegal act, changed the legalities.

            An illegal act was committed by the Arabs and therefore …

            … according to you, Jews cannot return to East Jerusalem.

            Hypocrisy at it’s best …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israeli: I was ejected from East Jerusalem! I want to return!Israel: I sympathise, really, I do, but my hands are tied.”

            But our hands are not tied. After all we now control East Jerusalem after we gained control of it through a war of self defense in 1967.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israeli: When, then! When!!!!

            Non sequitur. Now. We have already returned to where we lived since time immemorial.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel: When I end this occupation, dude, just be patient coz’ I’m working on it.”

            Israel cannot end the “occupation” on it’s own. The Arabs have to first renounce their policy of aggression against the Jewish state and sign a formal peace treaty first. And since they have been dragging their feet, we won’t be penalising Jews any longer by preventing them from living where we lived since time immemorial.

            BUBBLEBOY:”The only bit in that exchange that is untrue is the very last bit i.e. Israel has no intention of “ending the occupation”.

            Funny that. Ever since 1967 Israel requested recognition of the Jewish state and a formal peace treaty. But the Arabs refused.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too i.e. it wants to keep the occupation going SO THAT it can keep colonizing this territory.”

            No, we just want OUR share of the cake.

            BUBBLEBOY:”That’s a crime. A war crime.”

            Only in Bubble-World.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Honestly, Gustav, you are incapable of comprehending a very, very simple concept: an unconditional prohibition is a prohibition that is “not conditional”.

            I comprehend your concept alright. It is this …

            Either Israel gives in to Arab blackmail about how Arabs want a peace to “look like” which would be just a stepping stone to their next war of aggression against us …

            Or

            … The “occupation” would continue and Israel would get blackmailed into not allowing Jews to return to East Jerusalem which in turn would punish Jewish civilians for illegal act which the Arabs committed in 1948 and 1967.

            No cigar, Bubbleboy!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            What was it you were always saying about pointless repetition, Gustav?

            Methinks you doth protest too much.

            You keep refusing to acknowledge that the prohibition on the transfer of one’s one citizens into a territory that you occupy is an UNCONDITIONAL prohibition.

            You don’t accept it.
            You don’t deny it.
            You simply refuse to acknowledge it.

            And by refusing to acknowledge it you think that you are free to come up with reasons why Israel has to – simply must! – do what it wants to do in this occupied territory.

            Which is, of course, exactly what is meant by the phrase “Israel abides by international law, when it is convenient”.

            Look that up in an encyclopaedia and you’ll find a photo of Gustav accompanying the article.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BUBBLEBOY:”What was it you were always saying about pointless repetition, Gustav?
            Methinks you doth protest too much.”

            Nope, I am just emulating you. A simple case of what’s good for the goose (you) is good for the gander (me).

            BUBBLEBOY:”You keep refusing to acknowledge that the prohibition on the transfer of one’s one citizens into a territory that you occupy is an UNCONDITIONAL prohibition.”

            And you keep refusing to acknowledge your own preaching. Here I’ll quote you again …

            … ”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            But Bubbleboy…

            You don’t accept your own rule.
            You don’t suddenly deny your own rule.
            You simply refuse to acknowledge it.

            And by refusing to acknowledge it you think that you are free to come up with reasons why Israel’s critics have the right to demand that Israel should perpetrate the illegal reality which they created in 1948 by expelling the Jews of East Jerusalem.

            BUBBLEBOY:”Which is, of course, exactly what is meant by the phrase “Israel abides by international law, when it is convenient”.

            Only if one accepts YOUR simplistic BS.

            BUBBLEBOY “Look that up in an encyclopaedia and you’ll find a photo of Gustav accompany the article.”

            LOL. Now now Bubbleboy … don’t make hysterical claims.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “And you keep refusing to acknowledge your own preaching. Here I’ll quote you again”
            Me: “Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            My statement is correct (just as it was correct when the ICJ pointed this out).

            This equation:
            ILLEGAL + ILLEGAL = IT’s LEGAL NOW
            is not a valid legal principle.

            Gustav: “And by refusing to acknowledge it you think that you are free to come up with reasons why Israel’s critics have the right to demand that Israel should perpetrate the illegal reality which they created in 1948 by expelling the Jews of East Jerusalem.”

            Gustav must have stayed up all night wracking his brains to come up with an excuse that sounds even half-way plausible for why Israel can – Nah! Must! – trash its obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

            And the quote above was the miserable result. How sad.

            In 1949 a great wrong was done to the Jews of East Jerusalem i.e. Jordan expelled them.

            In 1967 Israel seized East Jerusalem from Jordan, thereby replacing Jordan as The Occupying Power.

            Gustav is insisting that BECAUSE a great injustice was done to those Jews in 1949 then it is Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! to insist that Israel sit tight.

            Note, however, that the above is an emotive argument, it is not a LEGAL argument.

            A LEGAL argument would require Gustav to demonstrate that Israel actually possesses the “legal authority” to undo what Jordan wrought in 1949.

            And….. that is something that he can not do, precisely because International Humanitarian Law says the opposite.

            IHL very explicitly says that an occupying power is prohibited from transferring its own citizens into an occupied territory.

            Gustav will no doubt now splutter something along the lines that THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!! AN OUTRAGE!!! THAT’S SO UNFAIR! HOW DARE ANYONE SUGGEST THAT!

            Such an outburst would be wrong, precisely because this is not a “suggestion” of International Humanitarian Law.

            No.

            It is a “prohibition”, clearly spelt out in Black and White, and it allows for no exception.

            This is very, very simple.

            Gustav keeps shouting about what international law SHOULD say, while I keep pointing to what international law DOES say.

            In that exchange I will win and he will lose every single day of the week.

            He’s just too dim to understand that, which is why he keeps coming back day after day with his grotesque impersonation of Dorothy clicking his ruby slippers together while shouting “There’s no place like home! There’s no place like home! There’s no place like home!”.

            Reply to Comment
    24. Brian

      I.

      In my reading of all this, Gustav, you have never seriously confronted the argument that GCIV unconditionally prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own citizens into an occupied territory—and prohibits this unconditionally for good reason since if it is not unconditional every aggrieved party will manufacture “conditions” and seize on “conditions” because life is full of “conditions.”

      II.

      What is more, you pose this question:

      GUSTAV: “But the question that it begs is end it HOW? By unilaterally withdrawing? ”

      This was indeed already answered by YR as follows:

      YEAH RIGHT:
      Q: Does that mean those Jews can never “return”?
      A: No, it doesn’t mean that at all.
      Q: When, then?
      A: Israel can negotiate that “return” as a line-item in the final status agreement, so those Jews “return” when the occupation ends.

      You, Gustav, ignore this and go on to confuse matters as follows:

      GUSTAV: Oh but wait a minute … BUBBLEBOY says. All Israel has to do is to accept the dictates of the Arab aggressors and then supposedly Jews would be allowed to return to East Jerusalem. So again, what he really means is that Israel is obliged to reward aggression against itself and then, in theory at least, Jews could return to live in East Jerusalem. But we all know what would happen in practice, don’t we?

      The problem with this is: YR’s statement that “Israel can negotiate that “return” as a line-item in the final status agreement, so those Jews “return” when the occupation ends” simply does NOT equate or even remotely approximate to Gustav’s statement that “Israel has to…accept the dictates of the Arab aggressors…Israel is obliged to reward aggression against itself.”

      III.

      Furthermore, Gustav, you have never adequately confronted the allegation that the bulk of Israel’s true motivations have nothing to do with non-disingenuous fears about “what would happen in practice” if Israel respected GCIV (i.e., fears that Jews would never be allowed to return to EJ), but have in reality to do with Israel’s true motivation: to entrench the occupation for entirely different hegemonic reasons. As summarized here:

      YEAH RIGHT:
      Q: So what’s the problem then?
      A: Israel has no intention of EVER ending this endless occupation.

      In other words, Gustav, to turn it around, you have never adequately confronted the allegation that Israel’s true fear about “what would happen in practice” if Israel respected GCIV is not a fear that no Jews could live in East Jerusalem, but a fear that Israel ultimately would have to share Jerusalem and would have to stop proclaiming Jerusalem “eternally united and undivided.”
      And in fact you have not replied to these problems but resorted instead to a meaningless diversion: “Bubbleboy = Phil?…Phil = Bubbleboy?”*

      IV.

      *What does it say about you that YR has always addressed you as Gustav and has never resorted to name calling but you insist ad nauseum on the silly, shouted, playground epithet, “BUBBLEBOY”?

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        Brian, the entire exchange can be distilled down to this: Geneva Convention IV unconditionally prohibits an occupying power from colonizing an occupied territory with its own citizens.

        No ifs.
        No buts.
        No exceptions.

        Queue the inevitable exchange.

        Gustav: But what about if…
        Me: I’m going to stop you there and point out that the prohibition allows no exceptions.

        Gustav: But suppose that….
        Me: No, dude, no exceptions.

        Gustav: Hang on, in the case where…
        Me: No exceptions, dude.

        Gustav: But if we….
        Me: Exceptions aren’t allowed, dude.

        This has been going on endlessly.

        Gustav simply will not accept that the prohibition is “unconditional”, and so he keeps coming up with “conditions” that he thinks will allow Israel to evade the prohibition.

        He is wrong.
        He is always wrong.
        He will always be wrong.

        There is only one way that Israelis can legally “settle” in this city and it is AFTER THE OCCUPATION ENDS.

        Not “during”, but “after”.

        That is anathema to Gustav, precisely because he knows as well as you and I that Israel has ZERO intention of ever ending this endless occupation.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          BUBBLEBOY:”Brian, the entire exchange can be distilled down to this: Geneva Convention IV unconditionally prohibits an occupying power from colonizing an occupied territory with its own citizens.

          No ifs.
          No buts.
          No exceptions.”

          Really? In other words according to our intrepid Bubbleboy, one can invoke one legality to validate an illegality.

          A bit like pretending that if a stolen car is sold to someone then that someone owns the stolen car. Of course that is not so. The car is still owned by the original owner and when it is found, the car will be returned to the original owner.

          In the same way, when Israel gained control of East Jerusalem, in a war of self defense in 1967, it had every right to allow the Jewish inhabitants who always lived there, to return to live there again.

          BUBBELBOY:”Queue the inevitable exchange.

          GUSTAV: But what about if…
          BUBBLEBOY:”I’m going to stop you there and point out that the prohibition allows no exceptions.”

          As if you are the arbiter of all wisdom. How about if I stop you before you make YOUR claims?

          GUSTAV: “But suppose that….”
          BUBBLEBOY : “No, dude, no exceptions.”

          No? Then you better shut your face too!

          GUSTAV: “Hang on, in the case where…”
          BUBBLEBOY:” No exceptions, dude.”

          Yet you still won’t shut YOUR face, huh?

          GUSTAV: “But if we….”
          BUBBLEBOY:”Exceptions aren’t allowed, dude.”

          Wow, what a hypocrite. He thinks he is the only one who is allowed to voice an opinion …

          BUBBLEBOY:”This has been going on endlessly.

          Gustav simply will not accept that the prohibition is “unconditional”, and so he keeps coming up with “conditions” that he thinks will allow Israel to evade the prohibition.”

          As you simply won’t accept what I am saying. It goes both ways, but Bubbleboy seems to think that he has divine authority to shut everyone who disagrees with him up.

          BUBBLEBOY:”He is wrong.
          He is always wrong.
          He will always be wrong.”

          YOU are wrong.
          YOU are always wrong.
          YOU will always be wrong.

          BUBBLEBOY:”There is only one way that Israelis can legally “settle” in this city and it is AFTER THE OCCUPATION ENDS.”

          Non sequitur. We already settled it.

          BUBBLEBOY:”Not “during”, but “after”.

          Where have you been Bubbleboy? The problem has been already solved.

          BUBBLEBOY:That is anathema to Gustav, precisely because he knows as well as you and I that Israel has ZERO intention of ever ending this endless occupation.”

          Sigh, we have made countless peace offers but Your Saint Palestinians refused all our offers. It seems they like to be “occupied”.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            To the confused reader with little time and patience on your hands:

            If you are confused it is because Gustav would like you to be. As in an endless loop computer program, please return to the concise clarifying summary by Brian, above, followed by the concise, clarifying summary by Yeah Right.

            Brian <== ==>

            Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “In my reading of all this, Gustav…”

        Your reading of it is biased Brian.

        Furthermore, you said mothing new which wasn’t already done to death by me and your new buddy.

        Which then begs the question:

        What value are you adding to the discussion other than to act as a rubber stamp and to prop up your buddy’s flagging morale?

        It is interesting to note how you guys make silly allegations when someone like Kiwi turns up to give me support.

        You people are a bunch of hypocrites. Aren’t you?

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          That’s easy: Value added is a concise, clarifying summary of a long, confused, meandering back-and-forth, clearly delineating the confusions introduced. Which helpfully spurred YR to contribute his own concise, clarifying summary. It’s the least we can do for the many readers who do not have the time and patience to wade through all that.

          Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Poor old BUBBLEBOY. He thinks that by endlessly repeating his distorted view of how international laws apply, he will make everyone believe he is right.

          But I can repeat things too …

          Reply to Comment
    25. Yeah, Right

      Gustav: “He thinks that by endlessly repeating his distorted view of how international laws apply”

      This is very, very simple: I say that this prohibition:
      “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
      is an unconditional prohibition i.e. an occupier is not allowed to come up with any excuses why That Doesn’t Apply To Me.

      And I am right – there is no “except when…..” in that sentence.

      Notice how Gustav argument responds i.e. he refuses to engage on that point whatsoever, instead arguing something that is not a LEGAL argument at all, but is merely an emotive plea to Please Consider Those Poor, Poor, Poor Hard Done By Jews.

      Sorry, Gustav, I feel for them too. But unlike you I accept that every one of those Hard Done By Jews is also a 100% Hard Core Israeli.

      And, repeat after me, everyone!

      “Israel shall not deport or transfer parts of its Israeli population into the territory that Israel occupies”.

      Pretty simple.
      Eminently clear.
      Utterly accurate.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        GUSTAV :The entire exchange can be distilled down to this: BUBBLEBOY:”Illegal acts do NOT somehow change the legalities.” Therefore the illegal act of the expulsion of the Jews of East Jerusalem in 1948 cannot be turned into a legality by invoking “irrelevant legalities”.

        No ifs.
        No buts.
        No exceptions.”

        A bit like pretending that if a stolen car is sold to someone then that someone owns the stolen car. Of course that is not so. The car is still owned by the original owner and when it is found, the car will be returned to the original owner.

        In the same way, when Israel gained control of East Jerusalem, in a war of self defense in 1967, it had every right to allow the Jewish inhabitants who always lived there, to return to live there again.

        GUSTAV:Queue the inevitable exchange.

        BUBBLEBOY: “But what about if…”

        GUSTAV:No exceptions dude!

        BUBBLEBOY : “But suppose that….”
        GUSTAV : No, dude, no exceptions.

        BUBBLEBOY: “Hang on, in the case where…”
        GUSTAV : No exceptions, dude.

        BUBBLEBOY: “But if we….”
        GUSTAV: Exceptions aren’t allowed, dude.

        GUSTAV :”This has been going on endlessly.

        BUBBLEBOY simply will not accept that the rule is “unconditional”, and so he keeps coming up with “conditions” that he thinks will allow The critics of Israel to evade the this common sense rule.

        GUSTAV:He is wrong.
        He is always wrong.
        He will always be wrong.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “Notice how Gustav argument responds i.e. he refuses to engage on that point whatsoever, instead arguing something that is not a LEGAL argument at all, but is merely an emotive plea to Please Consider Those Poor, Poor, Poor Hard Done By Jews.”

          Actually I keep on quoting the legal argument which you preached to me earlier:

          BUBBLEBOY:”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

          And you keep on studiously ignoring your own legal argument and insist that an act of illegality by the Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs can somehow be perpetrated by another legality (the Geneva Conventions).

          Why does BUBBLEBOY do that?

          … Because he tries to tug at the heart by advancing an emotive plea to Please Consider Those Poor, Poor, Poor Hard Done By Palestinian Arabs.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Me: “Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            Gustav: “And you keep on studiously ignoring your own legal argument and insist that an act of illegality by the Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs can somehow be perpetrated by another legality (the Geneva Conventions).”

            Sigh.

            I am talking about how you can’t use this equation:
            ILLEGAL + ILLEGAL = IT’S NOW LEGAL.

            Gustav’s counter-argument is that it is Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! that The Wrong Done To Those Jews is “perpetuated” by the prohibition in the Geneva Conventions.

            The flaw is easy to spot i.e. he uses the word “perpetuated” as if he had just mouthed the word “perpetuity”.

            Now, I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, though I am certain that Gustav will respond with outrage at my “repetition”.

            Regardless, this is true: a belligerent occupation is inherently a *temporary* situation.

            IHL never intends any occupation to be a *permanent* state of affairs.

            So, with that in mind….

            Do “rights” get suspended during a belligerent occupation?

            Yep, they sure do.

            And IHL ok with that?

            Yep, it sure is.

            Hmmm, does that include the rights that those poor, poor, poor “1949 Jews” have to seek restitution?

            Yep, indeed.

            Those rights don’t go away, but the occupying power is obliged by IHL to suspend any and all attempts to act upon those rights FOR AS LONG AS IT IS THE OCCUPYING POWER.

            End the occupation = end the prohibition = those aggrieved Jews can now seek what they claim is rightfully theirs.

            You simply don’t get it, do you?

            An occupying power doesn’t have the discretion that you keep claiming that it has.

            The occupier isn’t allowed to find some sob-story “justifying” why it has to trash the obligations that it had already agreed to when it signed onto that Convention.

            “Abiding by International Law, when its convenient” is not an option that you will find anywhere in the Geneva Conventions.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “And you keep on studiously ignoring your own legal argument and insist that an act of illegality by the Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs can somehow be perpetrated by another legality (the Geneva Conventions).”

            BUBBLEBOY:”Sigh.

            I am talking about how you can’t use this equation:
            ILLEGAL + ILLEGAL = IT’S NOW LEGAL.”

            Your above equation is not the correct representation of the situation. It is incorrect because this is what you preached …

            ”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.” In other words, the following equation is the correct representation of what you would have us believe …

            REALITY + ILLEGAL = A LEGAL ALTERED REALITY

            BUBBLEBOY:”Gustav’s counter-argument is that it is Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! that The Wrong Done To Those Jews is “perpetuated” by the prohibition in the Geneva Conventions.”

            More like the incorrect application of the Geneva Conventions.

            BUBBLEBOY:”The flaw is easy to spot i.e. he uses the word “perpetuated” as if he had just mouthed the word “perpetuity”.

            Sigh, you don’t like the word “perpetuate”? Ok I am willing to please you. How about “prolong”? Surely you can’t argue about prolong. Surely, 1948 to 2014 and still going is a long time. Don’t you think?

            BUBBLEBOY:”Now, I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, though I am certain that Gustav will respond with outrage at my “repetition”.

            More like resigned acceptance …

            BUBBLEBOY:”Regardless, this is true: a belligerent occupation is inherently a *temporary* situation.”

            Only if the party which initiated the aggression (the Arabs) are reasonable and work with the “occupier” to reach a peace deal. But if the aggressors (the Arabs) try to dictate terms then the negotiations inevitably get prolonged and bog down. So, at the least, they are unacceptably long.

            BUBBLEBOY:”IHL never intends any occupation to be a *permanent* state of affairs.”

            Intentions don’t matter. Reality matters.

            BUBBLEBOY:”So, with that in mind….

            Do “rights” get suspended during a belligerent occupation?

            Yep, they sure do.”

            Really? Does that mean that BOTH the rights of Jews and Arabs get suspended? Or is it just the rights of Jews …?

            Why do I get the sinking feeling that Bubbleboy means the latter?

            BUBBLEBOY:”Hmmm, does that include the rights that those poor, poor, poor “1949 Jews” have to seek restitution?

            Yep, indeed.Those rights don’t go away, but the occupying power is obliged by IHL to suspend any and all attempts to act upon those rights FOR AS LONG AS IT IS THE OCCUPYING POWER.”

            Yep, I was right. Our condascending little prick means just the rights of the Jews. And why?

            Because he deems us the occupiers because in our war of self defence in 1967 we had the temerity to win the war and in that process we ended up controlling East Jerusalem. A place which we inhabited since time immemorial barring 19 years during which the Arabs kept us out of East Jerusalem illegally.

            BUBBLEBOY:”End the occupation = end the prohibition = those aggrieved Jews can now seek what they claim is rightfully theirs.”

            Yep, the sole onus is on Israel to end the occupation according to our Bubbleboy[sarcasm]. The Arabs don’t have to agree to renounce their aggressive intent against the Jewish state.[sarcasm] In your dreams Bubbleboy.

            BUBBLEBOY:”You simply don’t get it, do you?”

            I get it. You are the one who does not get it. The Arabs contributed to this mess at least as much but in reality much more than we did.

            Therefore, the Arabs are obliged to contribute to the peace process not just sit back and make demands.

            And in the meanwhile, if there is suffering to be had then they can accept the return of their Jewish neighbors whom they illegally kicked out.

            BUBBLEBOY:”An occupying power doesn’t have the discretion that you keep claiming that it has.”

            Nor does it have the obligation to prolong the consequences of an act of illegality (the expulsion of the Jews) which the people who are under occupation (the Arabs) committed in 1949 (the expulsion of the Jews)

            BUBBLEBOY:”The occupier isn’t allowed to find some sob-story “justifying” why it has to trash the obligations that it had already agreed to when it signed onto that Convention.”

            Nor does it have to fall for the sob story of the aggressors (the Arabs) who claim that they just cannot accept the idea that once again they have to live next to Jewish neighbors.

            BUBBLEBOY “Abiding by International Law, when its convenient” is not an option that you will find anywhere in the Geneva Conventions.”

            True. But the interpretation of laws are always debatable till a definitive enforcable judgement is reached. Till then, we only have opinions. And the law can get very complicated.

            Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Gustav: “A bit like pretending that if a stolen car is sold to someone then that someone owns the stolen car. Of course that is not so. The car is still owned by the original owner and when it is found, the car will be returned to the original owner.”

          No, it’s nothing like that.

          If anything it’s like a car that has been impounded in the Police Lockup, only the Cops insist on letting Cousin Moshe take it home because “he says it’s his”.

          The. Police. Aren’t. Allowed. To. Make. That. Decision.

          Equally, an occupying power is not allowed to make the decision that its citizens can “settle” in this occupied territory because _______ (insert Gustav’s excuse-of-the-day).

          The “authority” of an occupying power derives from Intl Humanitarian Law, and IDL doesn’t trust *any* occupier to have that amount of discretionary authority.

          That would be way too dangerous, and far too open for abuse.

          As, indeed, we can oh-so-plainly see.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “A bit like pretending that if a stolen car is sold to someone then that someone owns the stolen car. Of course that is not so. The car is still owned by the original owner and when it is found, the car will be returned to the original owner.”

            BUBBLEBOY:”No, it’s nothing like that.”

            Yes it IS like that.

            STOLEN CAR: Stolen Homes of Jews.

            THIEVES: Jordanian Army and Palestinian Arab militias.

            BUYERS: Arabs of East Jerusalem who in fact were part of the people who contributed militias who expelled the Jews of East Jerusalem.

            BUBBLEBOY:”If anything it’s like a car that has been impounded in the Police Lockup, only the Cops insist on letting Cousin Moshe take it home because “he says it’s his”.

            Really? So who are the police in your scenario? I have an idea who you mean by Cousin Moshe. You mean the Israeli Jews, right?

            But your last sentence is telling because it implies that Cousin Moshe (the Israeli Jews) have no claim on any of East Jerusalem.

            If so, then I guess your intentions are clear. At the end of the process you expect The Jews to be diddled by the thieves who clearly expelled us from East Jerusalem.

            BUBBLEBOY:”The. Police. Aren’t. Allowed. To. Make. That. Decision.”

            Ah, now I get it. You mean the police is the state of Israel? A bit far fetched isn’t it? I mean the police at least in theory should be impartial shouldn’t they?

            But by what stretch of the imagination would you expect a protagonist in a 100 year war to be impartial? I mean, clearly we are not impartial. Nor has ever any other protagonist in any war in the history of mankind been impartial. And I doubt that the day will come when any protagonist in any future war would be impartial.

            BUBBLEBOY;”Equally, an occupying power is not allowed to make the decision that its citizens can “settle” in this occupied territory because _______ (insert Gustav’s excuse-of-the-day).”

            Ok. My excuse? I have uttered it at least 20 times but your thick head does not grasp it…

            …since we don’t live in bubble-world, we will reverse an illegal act which was carried out against our people 19 years before, rather than use pretend laws to perpetrate that illegal act for 47+ years. It is a no brainer. Noone else would act any differently than us if they would walk in our shoes, no matter what sort of mumbo jumbo would be thrown at them by seasoned propagandists like you Bubbleboy.

            BUBBLEBOY:”The “authority” of an occupying power derives from Intl Humanitarian Law, and IDL doesn’t trust *any* occupier to have that amount of discretionary authority.”

            And if there is a disputd regarding the interpretation of that humanitarian law because each case is unique, then the dispute needs to be brought and settled in a suitable court of law and only if a mandatory verdict is presented, only then would the occupying power (Israel) would need to abide by it or else …

            Before then? Nah, the assertions by people like you and others are just opinions. Opinions with which many learned people disagree.

            BUBBLEBOY:”That would be way too dangerous, and far too open for abuse.”

            Which is also true about opinions.

            BUBBLEBOY:”As, indeed, we can oh-so-plainly see.”

            Indeed. Look at all this volume of sheer boring repetition which we both managed to churn out yet it gets us nowhere.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “But your last sentence is telling because it implies that Cousin Moshe (the Israeli Jews) have no claim on any of East Jerusalem.”

            Look, that statement is so obviously a deliberate lie that I can not let it stand.

            I said what I said, Gustav, and what I have always said is this: ISRAEL is the OCCUPYING POWER, and as such its “authority” derives from International Humanitarian Law.

            So if IHL says an occupier can do *this* then I got no problem with Israel doing *this*.

            No problem at all.

            But if IHL says that an occupier is prohibited from doing *that* then Israel is not allowed to do *that*.

            That’s a pretty simple concept to understand, dude.

            Now, does IHL grant “Israel, the occupying power” the “authority” to decide that it is “allowed” to ignore an explicit prohibition on transferring its own citizens into an occupied territory.

            No, it is not.

            IHL does not give any occupier the “wriggle-room” to wriggle its way out of that prohibition.

            Now, saying that does NOT suggest that the Jews who were ejected from East Jerusalem “have no claim”.

            It. Does. Not. Suggest. That. One. Little. Bit.

            What it does mean is that Israel. Does. Not. Have. The. Authority. To. Make. That. Decision.

            I’m sorry, Gustav, but you are a idiot, and in your last few posts you have proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

            If you want to debate then debate me, but STOP F**KING VERBALLING ME.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “But your last sentence is telling because it implies that Cousin Moshe (the Israeli Jews) have no claim on any of East Jerusalem.”

            BUBBLEBOY “Look, that statement is so obviously a deliberate lie that I can not let it stand.

            I’m sorry, Gustav, but you are a idiot, and in your last few posts you have proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

            If you want to debate then debate me, but STOP F**KING VERBALLING ME.”

            Two more verbose posts from Bubbleboy, both not saying much except repetition and false indignation. So I too will post two of my posts and repeat what I said which you keep on ignoring.

            First of all you can protest all you like but by invoking irrelevant laws for this conflict, the “population transfer” clause of the IHL, is in effect denying us, the Israeli Jews the right to live where we lived for thousands of years (in East Jerusalem).

            You can put your hand on your heart, protest all you like and pretend that I am lying but no amount of protest changes the fact that by invoking your irrelevant law you would deny us the right to live in East Jerusalem in effect from 1948 to some future date.

            Let me do some quick calculation for you: it is now the end of 2014 and the situation has still not been resolved. Nor does it look like it will be resolved anytime soon. So how many years is that? It is 66 years plus. Even if we take off the first 19 years (the years between 1948 and 1967) when the Arabs committed and maintained their illegal expulsion of us, even then you would be advocating that for the last 47 years (and still going) we had no right to live where we lived for Millenia. I am sorry, but you can protest all you like but in effect it makes my above statement fact. Had we listened to you, you would have cemented the illegal act of the Arabs (our expulsion) by using international laws inappropriately.

            And let me remind you your own preaching to me again, which you suddenly have gone awfully quiet about …

            ”Again, Gustav is insisting that an illegal act somehow changes the legalities.”

            In other words you told me that an illegal act cannot become legal by invoking other legalities. But in our case, you are using sleight of hand to bring about exactly such a situation by trying to forget about the original illegal act in 1948 (our expulsion) and bringing in other legalities ( your misuse of the relevant article of the IHL).

            I know what you will be saying now (repetition): aww, shucks … you will say … no, I am not denying you the right to return. All you need to do is end the occupation …

            That easy huh? But what do you think we have been trying to do since 1967? We have been trying to make peace with the Arabs but your Saint Palestinians have been dragging their feet to this day. I am sorry, Bubbleboy but we cannot end the “occupation” without a peace deal. Deal with it and deal with our decision of returning where we always lived in East Jerusalem. Or don’t. Either way it isn’t our problem because we already solved our problem.

            Reply to Comment
    26. Yeah, Right

      Gustav: “Really? So who are the police in your scenario?”

      !!!!

      The police = the Army of Occupation.
      The car = the territory that they are occupying.
      Moshe = the settlers.

      Honestly, Gustav, nobody can be that stupid.

      Gustav: “I have an idea who you mean by Cousin Moshe.”

      Apparently Gustav is indeed that stupid.

      Gustav: “You mean the Israeli Jews, right?”

      No, I mean “the citizens of the occupying power” whom the occupying power insists on “transferring” into this occupied territory.

      Gustav: “But your last sentence is telling because it implies that Cousin Moshe (the Israeli Jews) have no claim on any of East Jerusalem.”

      Fer’ Cryin’ Out Loud!

      That is SO stupid that it must be deliberate.

      Look back over my posts.

      I have clearly and consistently said that and Jew who was ejected from East Jerusalem in 1949 has a LEGITIMATE GRIEVENCE and has A RIGHT TO RECOMPENSE FOR THAT WRONG.

      I have also said – too many times to recount – that their right is not and can not be extinguished by this belligerent occupation.

      Honestly, Gustav, you can argue as much as you want. Feel free.

      But it is never cool to verbal the person you are arguing with, Gustav. Never.

      Because – du’oh! – when you do that you aren’t arguing with **me**, you are simply arguing with the voices in your head.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        MY scenario was …
        A bit like pretending that if a stolen car is sold to someone then that someone owns the stolen car. Of course that is not so. The car is still owned by the original owner and when it is found, the car will be returned to the original owner.

        In the same way, when Israel gained control of East Jerusalem, in a war of self defense in 1967, it had every right to allow the Jewish inhabitants who always lived there, to return to live there again.

        … and how did Bubbleboy attempt to change my scenario into his scenario?
        BUBBLEBOY:”If anything it’s like a car that has been impounded in the Police Lockup, only the Cops insist on letting Cousin Moshe take it home because “he says it’s his”.

        The. Police. Aren’t. Allowed. To. Make. That. Decision.

        The police = the Army of Occupation.
        The car = the territory that they are occupying.
        Moshe = the settlers.”

        Of course in my previous post I already showed him how inappropriate his analogy is. But as usual, he ignored it and he just goes on repeating himself. So let me too to repeat myself …

        Let me start with the “settlers”. To our Bubbleboy, the “settlers” are something akin to demons. To him, they are somehow a separate entity from other Israelis. The reality however is that they are Israelis too and some of them are families of Jews who were illegally kicked out of East Jerusalem, by the Arabs in 1948. And let me remind our Bubbleboy that since East Jerusalem always had a Jewish population, for even a longer time than the Arab population, Jews, including the “settlers” have an inherent right to live in East Jerusalem where we always lived.

        Now let’s look at the police. According to our Bubbleboy, the police are the army of occupation who “impounded a car”. But is that what really happened? Nah … not really …

        What really happened was that in 1967, the Arabs again initiated a war of aggression. They lost that war and in the process, our army gained control of East Jerusalem where we always lived, barring the previous 19 years. In other words, we found OUR “stolen car”.

        … suddenly then, Bubbleboy tries to pretend that our army is the police who has the duty of care to keep us from returning to our old homes by misusing the relevant clauses of the IHL. But in reality, our army is not an impartial police force whose duty is to be impartial between our sworn enemies and Israelis. The duty of our army is to protect us and to first and foremost look out for our interests. And one of those interests is the recovery of our stolen property, the equivalent of our stolen car, East Jerusalem.

        Had this been an ideal world, after our 1967 victory, there would have been a peace deal between us and the Arabs. As that part of that peace deal, we should have been allowed to return to East Jerusalem and the “occupation” would have ended too and East Jerusalem would have became part of … which country …? … An international city? … Anybody’s guess. But alas that did not happen. Why? Because the Saint Palestinians have been dragging their feet. They refused to renounce their old objective of trying to destroy the Jewish state so there was/is no peace deal and the “occupation” continues….

        But in the meanwhile, our Bubbleboy, pretends that for 47 years (and still going) our own army had the duty to perpetrate the original illegal act of the Arabs, our expulsion from East Jerusalem and keep us from returning? Utter madness! Why should our own army enforce the illegal ethnic cleansing of Jews from East Jerusalem by the Arabs? Because the Bubbleboys of this world pretend that an IHL law exists which would allow the Arabs to keep us out of where we belong for such a prolonged period? … Utter madness!!!

        And one more thing … can somebody explain to me exactly why is it a hardship for the Arabs to bear the presence of Jews in East Jerusalem? Here is the real answer behind their jumbo jumbo. They simply don’t want us in East Jerusalem. Is that a lie? If it is, then how come they ethnically cleansed us from East Jerusalem in 1948? And how come they illegally kept us out of there for 19 years between 1948 and 1967?

        Reply to Comment
    27. phil

      I agree that descendants of Jews that were expelled have an inherent right to return to their former properties on EJ.. I also agree that this expulsion was illegal and a war crime..

      However, and as has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, while the territory remains under belligerent occupation the occupying power cannot settle the area with its own civilians.. this is also a war crime

      So the descendants of those expelled do have the right to return, but they cannot legally exercise this right at the current time because of the actions of their country

      This is not “misusing the relevant clauses of IHL”, this is what IHL plainly states, unambiguously, and is accepted by the international community.. even by the US government

      Simply put, two wrongs do not make a right..

      It does not ask your army to enforce ethnic cleansing, but it does tell them that aiding and supporting the colonial expansion of Israel is an illegal war crime

      As regards the origin of the ethnic cleansing of EJ’s Jewish population, you ask why? I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by suggesting that it might have something to do with the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians..

      Also a war crime.. but I doubt that you’d acknowledge this.. or agree that these people to have a right to return to their original homes.. sadly, you are unable to extend the same rights to goyim as you claim for your people

      However, there is some progress in that you have acknowledged that IHL is relevant to the occupation..

      If only you could understand that IHL is not optional, there are no ifs or buts, no get out of jail cards..

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        PHIL

        You have turned up like a bad smell again?

        What was your complaint against Kiwi again? That he turned up out of nowhere? Oh and your silly accusation about sock puppets? Are you sure you are not one?

        About your post. Read the 500 posts here. It has been done to death. You are just repeating yourself and rubber stamping yourself.

        One has to wonder who Brian and Phil are and how they are finding this dead thread?

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          PHIL:”However, there is some progress in that you have acknowledged that IHL is relevant to the occupation..”

          GUSTAV:”( your misuse of the relevant article of the IHL).”

          I don’t know if you are one person with several personas or whether you are just one of many dishonest people who posts here. But if it isn’t dishonesty, then your comprehension leaves something to be desired.

          Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        PHIL:”Simply put, two wrongs do not make a right..”

        Correcting a wrong does not make a wrong.

        Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        They well understand, Phil. (I’m implicitly granting them an IQ > 75.) They just pretend they don’t.

        Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        PHIL/YR:”It does not ask your army to enforce ethnic cleansing, but it does tell them that aiding and supporting the colonial expansion of Israel is an illegal war crime”

        BS it is asking our army to uphold the ethnic cleansing which was carried out against up by the Arabs in 1948.

        PHIL/YR:”As regards the origin of the ethnic cleansing of EJ’s Jewish population, you ask why? I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by suggesting that it might have something to do with the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians.. ”

        Yeah, Right [sarcasm] … The arabs only carried out ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem’s Jews because we expelled Palestinian Arabs elsewhere? More like the other way around. Yes we did expel some. Many others fled as all civilians flee from war zones. But unlike the Arabs who expelled every Jew to the last man woman and child, we have over I million Arab citizens.

        PHIL/YR:”Also a war crime.. but I doubt that you’d acknowledge this.. or agree that these people to have a right to return to their original homes.. sadly, you are unable to extend the same rights to goyim as you claim for your people”

        An obnoxious comment from a bigot. You are projecting your own hatred. Nobody in our place would behave differently. Especially since the Arabs kicked out a million of us from Arab countries on top of the Jews of East Jerusalem.

        PHIL/YR:”However, there is some progress in that you have acknowledged that IHL is relevant to the occupation.. ”

        Utter BS. I have acknowledged no such thing!

        PHIL/YR:”If only you could understand that IHL is not optional, there are no ifs or buts, no get out of jail cards..”

        Yea, the IHL expects us to uphold the ethnic cleansing of our own people in East Jerusalem? In order to spare the feelings of the very population which aided and abetted our expulsion from East Jerusalem? Utterly ridiculous!!!!!

        Reply to Comment
        • phil

          You claim rights for the EJ Jews that were expelled, but you do not extend those rights to others..

          And you call me obnoxious..

          As regards IHL, you said “Bubbleboy tries to pretend that our army is the police who has the duty of care to keep us from returning to our old homes by misusing the relevant clauses of the IHL.”

          This statement indicates that there are clauses of IHL that are relevant to the conflict. The fact that you talk about misuse strengthens this, as it infers that there is a proper use for these clauses.

          That may not have been your intention, but it is what you wrote.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “That may not have been your intention, but it is what you wrote.”

            And you thrive on looking for ambiguity in my sentences and deliberately looking for the obviously wrong interpretations of them. That is known as playing with words.

            Your writing is nothing like YR? He does that too besides you already admitted that you are him when you said …

            PHIL/Yeah, Right:”It’s hilarious that you claim you whipped my ass”

            Because my claim was that I whipped YR’s ass.

            Reply to Comment
          • phil

            Gustav : you address a post to me by name, tell me you whipped my ass, mentioned no other names..

            And when I call you on it you then say you meant YR and that my challenging this nonsense somehow equates to prove that I am someone else..

            This is beyond ridicule

            Reply to Comment
        • phil

          Hi Brian.. I don’t think I write like YR either, and it’s clear that he or she thoroughly won the argument..

          All Gustav is able to do is make false accusations and call names – he cannot formulate a clear and reasoned argument and I must say I do enjoy pointing this out to him..

          If he was at least civil I would have left him alone..

          And as regards the “rubber stamping”, what about this:

          Gustav “So where was Gustav lying, Phil? I don’t blame him for not wanting to talk to a scumbag like you. Particularly since he is right when he says that all you want to do is to repeat what was already covered here under your other name.”

          Oh the irony.. posting as one of his alter-egos and then putting his own name on the post

          And then realising what he’d done and posting some rubbish about speaking in the third person

          Reply to Comment
    28. phil

      firing abuse instead of engaging with the content of my post.. draw your own conclusions folks

      Reply to Comment
    29. Kiwi

      What a hypocrite this Phil is.

      “Anyone notice how Kiwi often shows up ”

      Remember what you said about me?

      Reply to Comment
    30. phil

      still failing to engage with the content of my post Gustav.. clearly you have nothing constructive to offer..

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        The content of your post has been done to death on this thread.

        There is no point in rehashing again what we already argued over here many times just because you turn up here with the new name of Phil.

        You have said nothing new. Till you do, there is no point in talking to you.

        PS
        Brian, are you still here? And you are talking about IQ’s? Let’s see then …

        …. you do realise that your presence here is contributing to lowering of the average IQ of the peope on this site to below 75, don’t you?

        Reply to Comment
    31. phil

      Said nothing new? I’ve actually agreed with you on some very important points regarding the jews expelled from EJ in 1948..

      But your only response is to claim I’m either dishonest or have comprehension issues..

      No substantive comment on anything I’ve actually written..

      Pathetic

      Reply to Comment
    32. phil

      And as regards dishonesty in general..

      Your modus operandi regularly involves misquoting other posters here..

      And don’t forget that on this thread you were caught with your pants totally on fire trying to pass off the opinion of Stephen Schwebel as that of a judge of the ICJ..

      Reply to Comment
    33. Gustav

      You are the liar Phil. I searched this thread using the keyword Schwebel and I found that this is what Gustav said:

      “And here is a counter opinion of judge Stephen Schwebel of the ICJ at an earlier date”

      So where is Gustav’s lie in the above?

      Are you saying that Schwebel wasn’t a judge of the ICJ? He was, right?

      And Gustav clearly says that what Schwebel said was at an earlier date.

      So where was Gustav lying, Phil? I don’t blame him for not wanting to talk to a scumbag like you. Particularly since he is right when he says that all you want to do is to repeat what was already covered here under your other name.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Do you know why am I talking in third person, Phil? Because I am making a point …

        Because I know who you really are. You got your ass whipped and now you come back under a different name and start jumping up and down …

        “I demand a recount …I demand a recount …”

        LOL.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yvette

          Gosh yer insecure!

          Reply to Comment
    34. phil

      Gustav implied, and I believe he did this quite deliberately, that Schwebel was a judge of the ICJ at the time he gave the opinion that Gustav quoted..

      This is utter dishonesty, he was rightly called on it, and all he can do is stoop to name calling..

      Gustav :”Are you saying that Schwebel wasn’t a judge of the ICJ? He was, right?”

      Well, actually he wasn’t when he gave that opinion.. you know it, we know it, admit your dishonesty and move one

      If you’re going to accuse other folks of dishonesty it’s not a great idea to do it on a thread where you were hoisted your own petard

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        And you are surprised that I don’t want to engage a person like you who lies?

        Reply to Comment
        • phil

          no lies here gustav

          Reply to Comment
    35. phil

      And of course you have yet to address anything I wrote in my first post of this exchange.. you prefer to call names and make unfounded accusations as you are unable to formulate a proper argument..

      It’s hilarious that you claim you whipped my ass.. as you have yet to put forward any argument, I’m not sure how you were able to manage that.. unless you think calling people names is a form of argument..

      It’s not, it’s childish,and it’s what you always resort to when you’ve painted your own self into a corner..

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        PHIL/Yeah, Right:”It’s hilarious that you claim you whipped my ass..

        Well … at least with this post you admit that you and YEAH, RIGHT are one and the same.

        Another thing which you lied about previously.

        Reply to Comment
    36. phil

      Talking in the third person? Or hitting return on the keyboard and then going “ooops I’ve put the wrong name on this post” ?

      Hung yourself again there son

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        You can think whaever you like. No point in arguing with idiots. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience.

        Reply to Comment
    37. phil

      Please quote one of my lies Gustav.

      I, and others, have proven your dishonest behaviour on this thread.. which includes accusing me of lying

      If I have lied, it should be easy for you to produce a direct quote to prove your point

      Resorting to name calling is not an argument Gustav.. all you have done in your exchanges with me on this thread is make false accusations and personal abuse..

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        Phil: Just my opinion, but (1) You sound nothing like YR; (2) they invented rubber stamping and an obsession with who you are out of simmering frustration and an effort to bury the conclusion of this thread under a mound of further distraction because any fair minded reader can see that YR thoroughly won the argument, or rather, thoroughly won the argument about fifteen times. Slam dunk. Just my analysis.

        Reply to Comment
        • phil

          Hi Brian.. I don’t think I write like YR either, and it’s clear that he or she thoroughly won the argument..

          All Gustav is able to do is make false accusations and call names – he cannot formulate a clear and reasoned argument and I must say I do enjoy pointing this out to him..

          If he was at least civil I would have left him alone..

          And as regards the “rubber stamping”, what about this:

          Gustav “So where was Gustav lying, Phil? I don’t blame him for not wanting to talk to a scumbag like you. Particularly since he is right when he says that all you want to do is to repeat what was already covered here under your other name.”

          Oh the irony.. posting as one of his alter-egos and then putting his own name on the post

          And then realising what he’d done and posting some rubbish about speaking in the third person

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Well Phil/YR, I write nothing like Kiwi yet you have no problems with lying about that and making false accusations.

            As usual. You people are being hypocrites. You make accusations like there is no tomorrow. Bit if someone returns the compliment, you whine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “If he was at least civil I would have left him alone”

            Again with the hypocrisy. Again with the projections. You were the one who started with the non civility and not just on this thread where you muttered your first dark insinuation about Kiwi being me. But then you whine when I am not nice to you. And play word games about but “you said and it means …” even though if you look at context, it clearly does not. School boyish amateurish distractions when you people lose the arguments.

            And inevitably, to bolster your fragile little egos, you bring your own cheer squad with you … childish.

            Reply to Comment
          • phil

            I’m sure you would have been able to find a quote where I’ve lied, you’ve had plenty of time, yet despite being challenged to so you’ve come up with squat

            Conversely, I have quoted your own words to illustrate the truth of anything I said about you..

            With reference to context, there was nothing in the post where you brought up the relevant clauses of IHL to indicate that you actually meant it was not relevant..

            But of course when you are challenged you say that’s not what you meant.. flip flopping all over the place..

            As regards the sock puppetry, you also stupidly outed yourself on this very thread..

            Then you panicked and invented the clumsy excuse that you were using the third person “to make a point”..

            How much did you want for that bridge again?

            Accusing others of something and then accidentally proving that you are the sockpuppet.. that’s one for the EPIC FAIL hall of shame

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Your hysterical accusations don’t even warrant a response. But you ars lying about me being Kiwi. You lied about what I allegedly admitted about the IHL. And you lied about what I said about Schwebel.

            And I am getting more and more convinced about you being YR. It’s the “he said she said you said …” Game that gives you away.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            It is telling though that here you guy/s are posting nearly 500 posts debating me, with a cheer squad in tow.

            You know what that means to anyone with even half an intelligence? It means that you know that I have a coherent and logical message which worries you to death. And you are pulling out all stops to try to negate it. But the truthcan never be silenced. So stew on that!

            Reply to Comment
          • phil

            there’s nothing coherent or logical in writing one thing and then saying it means something completely different

            That’s just nonsense

            Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Brian, again …

          What are you doing on this dead and burroed thread in which thanks to your buddy/ies half the posts are just about who supposedly said supposedly what to whom?

          I know. You are just here to bolster theirfragile little egos and act as a cheer squad for his/their nonsensical games and stupid arguments.

          Just tell me Brian, what value do you add to the debate here? NO VALUE, none, nada zip value…

          So again, why are you here? I got under your skin or somethin’? Good!!!

          Reply to Comment
    38. phil

      I don’t think the hysteria is on my part.. I’m not the one who hasn’t been able to back up any of my accusations

      Gustav: “Bubbleboy tries to pretend that our army is the police who has the duty of care to keep us from returning to our old homes by misusing the relevant clauses of the IHL.”

      You clearly state there are clauses of IHL that are relevant. Nothing else in that post contradicts this statement.

      Your words.Not twisted. Not misquoted. Not out of context. Your words

      You have said that is not what you meant. Fair enough. But that is what you wrote. If you don’t like being pulled up then perhaps you should write what you actually mean to say

      Gustav : “here is a counter opinion of judge Stephen Schwebel of the ICJ at an earlier date”

      Schwebel was not a judge of any description when he wrote the opinion .. so (1) it is not a counter opinion as he wasn’t a member of the court, (2) neither is it the opinion of “of judge Stephen Schwebel of the ICJ at an earlier date”, (3) it is simply the opinion of one Stephen Schwebel period.

      However, you attempted to pass off this opinion as that of a ICJ judge. I accused you of being dishonest (not of lying) for this..

      And you were. You know it, Anyone who can read knows it..

      And as for you accidentally outing yourself.. nothing to say I suppose??

      Well, nothing much you could say, you really screwed that one up

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        PHIL/YR:”You clearly state there are clauses of IHL that are relevant. Nothing else in that post contradicts this statement.

        Your words.Not twisted. Not misquoted. Not out of context. Your words”

        Now witness what I really said….

        “But in the meanwhile, our Bubbleboy, pretends that for 47 years (and still going) our own army had the duty to perpetrate the original illegal act of the Arabs, our expulsion from East Jerusalem and keep us from returning? Utter madness! Why should our own army enforce the illegal ethnic cleansing of Jews from East Jerusalem by the Arabs? Because the Bubbleboys of this world pretend that an IHL law exists which would allow the Arabs to keep us out of where we belong for such a prolonged period? … Utter madness!!!”

        I couldn’t be clearer. And therefore anyone can judge for themselves how shoddy PHIL/YR really is!!!

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          … and yes I did say the above in another post. But is Phil/YR really pretending that he has read only one post on this thread? Not that even that one really means what he pretends it to mean. But there should be no need for his word games if he would only be willing to consider context, as I suggested to him earlier. But alas, these “people” prefer to play games …

          Reply to Comment
    39. Gustav

      Again with the …

      “You have said …”

      “…. you could say”

      Endless “he said, you said … she said games…”

      No substance …

      And again you just about admitted that …

      Phil = Yeah, Right!

      The pot calling the kettle …. Go figure.

      Reply to Comment
    40. phil

      you’re not worth any more words

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        PHIL:”…nohing to say I suppose??”

        Classic YR debating tactics. I already told him why I spoke in third person. I made a point. I then told him again that his allegation is a LIE!

        But he goes on and on and on about it … same with Schwebel … like a dog with a bone. Beyond stupid …!!!!

        Reply to Comment
    41. Click here to load previous comments