+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

How EU money enables the occupation, allows Israel to avoid its consequences

Has the seemingly permanent nature of Israeli control over the Palestinians rendered the legal term ‘occupation’ invalid?

European Union flags outside the European Commission building in Brussels. (Shutterstock.com)

European Union flags outside the European Commission building in Brussels. (Photo: Shutterstock.com)

Last week I attended a one-day symposium in the Netherlands on the EU’s role in Israel/Palestine, hosted by ‘A Different Jewish Voice,’ a local pro-peace group. You can read my notes from the event here. Below are comments delivered by Prof. Menachem Klein of Bar-Ilan University. Klein, who teaches political science, was a board member of the human rights organization B’Tselem and currently serves on the board of Ir Amin, an NGO monitoring Israeli policies in Jerusalem.

Prof. Klein tackled the common view in Israel about a European ‘bias’ in favor of the Palestinians, stating that to a certain extent, it is actually EU money that has allowed Israel to continue the occupation in the decades since the Oslo Accords. He concluded by making an interesting point: the legal term ‘occupation’, said Klein, has been stripped of its original meaning in the OPT and can no longer be used to describe the situation on the ground. I agree with his rational, but I also wonder whether declaring that we are now ‘beyond occupation’ might play into the hands of those in the Israeli and American right who outright deny the reality on the ground. In some venues even the term occupation is controversial, so should we be the ones abandoning it? I wonder what readers think.

* * *

Popular and official misperceptions of Europe

By Menachem Klein

“Europe today wants peace and quiet. … When it perceives, very wrongly, that Israeli politics are disturbing that quiet, it blames Israel,” stated Avi Pazner, former Israeli ambassador to Rome and Paris. “The Europeans don’t know Israel anymore. The tourists coming to Israel from Europe are mainly Jewish. The depth of ignorance in Europe is such that it creates misconceived ideas about Israel’s aims and policy. Israelis know Europe better as many vacation there. We are close to Europe with respect to culture, history, religion, trade, commerce and tourism. I think Israel has to invest every effort to try and change the European perception”[1].

Or as another person, Israeli-English university professor Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi put it, “Europeans see Israel as the embodiment of the demons of their own past”[2] “

Thus, Israel has to pay twice for Europe’s bad behavior: first to face anti-Semitic criticism. And second, Israel has to pay the cost of Europe’s colonial-imperialist past.

However, while using these and similar anti-European arguments, Israelis tend to forget that the balance sheet of Europe’s history is much more in favor of Zionism and Israel than against it. Without Zionist-British imperialist cooperation, the Zionist movement could not have achieved the 1917 Balfour commitment nor could it have established the State of Israel in 1948. Too often Israelis forget that in November 1947 European countries supported the United Nations partition resolution, which facilitated Israel’s creation. Moreover, under the Peres and Rabin premierships in 1984-1986 and 1992-1994, relations with Europe were rather good. In other words, Europe supported the right of self determination of the Jewish state, and still supports it. What Europe is really against are Israeli modes of operation, first and foremost, its continued two-generations-long rule over the Palestinians.

Israelis do not acknowledge that foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority – mainly by the EU – helps Israel maintain its rule over the Palestinians, as well as to keep Israeli citizens’ high standards of living. Since 1994 the international community has donated more than $30 billion to the PA as humanitarian relief and emergency assistance, most of it after the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000. The huge sum helps the PA to survive the present, but due to Israeli restrictions it cannot use it for capacity and infrastructure buildings.[3] Without this aid Israel would have to take on the daily life needs of more than 4 million Palestinians. Donor assistance in maintaining basic services and meeting humanitarian needs of the occupied Palestinian population has freed Israel from these responsibilities, and allowed it to avoid making hard political decisions regarding its legal, moral and political responsibilities toward the Palestinians. In other words, donor countries indirectly facilitate Israel’s rule over all of historical Palestine. Israel can expand settlements, prevent any Palestinian economic recovery, seize Palestinian land, cut the Palestinian territories to disconnected areas, increase socio-economic fragmentation to avoid the foundation of a viable Palestinian state, and in 2000-2003 it was able to carry out destructive army operations inside Palestinian cities, all while donors foot the bill for reconstruction and emergency aid.

The authors of a paper titled, “European Involvement in the Arab Israeli Conflict Paper” (2010),[4] published by the European Union Institute for Security Studies argued that the EU’s prioritization of cooperation with Israel has worked against prospects of a two-state solution, and led the EU to compromise adherence to its own norms and laws. They suggest adapting current policies and practices regarding Israeli settlement goods to comply with EU declarations and legal obligations, and seeking reimbursement for additional costs to EU-funded humanitarian relief incurred as a result of illegal practices in the West Bank. Other practical measures to deal with the particularly problematic issue of settlement growth might include issuing a code of conduct to discourage European investment in and cooperation with settlement-based companies. In East Jerusalem, the EU and its member states could tighten policies and practices to avoid de facto recognition of Israeli annexation.

In my view Europe has the right to say: enough, we don’t want to invest in projects that fundamentally contradict our moral (respecting human rights, minority rights and the Palestinian right of self determination) and political values (the establishment of a viable Palestinian state in 1967 territories) and economic interests.

Moreover, Europe has the right to intervene because the continued Israeli-Palestinian conflict creates security and political problems for Europe. Without Israeli-Palestinian peace, Western Europe faces insecurity as the conflict spills over into its area. During Israeli army operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, mass anti-Israeli demonstrations spread all over Western Europe’s main cities.

‘Occupation’ is no longer a relevant concept or definition

The term occupation is very often in use to define the Israeli rule over the Palestinians. Hereafter, I wish to suggest five reason why this is not an accurate term. I find it necessary to make a reality check. Without the right diagnosis we are unable to form a prognosis.

First, there is the time factor. Occupation, as the international law defines it, is temporary. Israel has ruled over the West Bank and Gaza Strip for almost 50 years, about two generations. This is not a temporary situation. Israel rules directly and by proxy (through the PA) over the whole area between Jordan River and the Mediterranean.[5]

Second there is a social-psychological factor. The vast majority of Israel’s population was not born or did not live in pre-1967 Israel. They don’t know any other reality and for many Israelis, the West Bank, or at least a large part of it, is “ours.”

Third, the reality on the ground has changed dramatically. Settlement expansion has created de-facto annexation of most West Bank areas. Israel has moved over half a million Jewish citizens into the West Bank. In many settlements you can find a third generation. For them, it’s their home forever. Some even follow their parent’s generation and establish new settlements of their own. In other words, the term occupation relates to army and force, and indeed the Israeli army is deployed in and manages the West Bank. But with the settlement expansion, Israel’s civilian arm is much more effective in the de facto annexation of this area than the army. Actually, the army assists the settlers to take control.

Fourth, as a consequence of the settlements’ expansion, two different legal systems exist in the same West Bank area: a military one for native Palestinians, an Israeli one for the colonizers. Similarly, two different legal statuses exist in annexed East Jerusalem. Israel fully annexed East Jerusalem’s land but not its native people. The land is under full Israeli state law but its Palestinian natives are just residents, enjoying fewer privileges than citizens. The dual law system is based on collective identities of the privileged and the deprived rather than the individual belonging to his or her native area. Such a system goes far beyond ‘occupation’, to the extent that more than a few Israelis and Palestinians tend to agree with Meron Benvenisti, that the Israeli settlement and control system is irreversible.

I find myself in agreement with the conclusion of academics and security experts, that in a case of Israeli withdraw from most of the West Bank and the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state with its capital in Arab Jerusalem, a sort of armed resistance by radical settlers can be expected. This may be our civil war, a traumatic event that will affect our identity in ways resembling the French, the British and the American civil wars. Only massive external pressure can bring the Israeli government to confront armed Jewish resistance and save Israel from destroying itself by ruling over the Palestinians.

Fifth, the pre-1967 lines are crossed in both directions. Not only do settlers and state agents cross [the Green Line] into the West Bank, settlers are entering mixed cities (Jaffa, Acre, Lydda, Ramleh] in order to “Judaize” them. The conflict is not “there,” far away in occupied territories – but here, at “home.”

The settlements enterprise is a state-made operation, not a private initiation. Settlement expansion and the systems of rule Israel has created since the early 21st century brings liberal Israelis to conclude that Israel uses Apartheid methods in controlling the West Bank.[6] Others identify Israel’s system of rule over the Palestinians as a mix of Apartheid, colonialism and ethnocentric state methods. Ehud Barak warned in February 2010: “make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid”[7]. Barak saw Apartheid waiting around the corner, but others identify similarities between South Africa under Apartheid and Israeli ruling system over the Palestinians in the present.

Israel is indeed a parliamentary democracy. It maintains regular, free, open and democratic elections that create a real competition for governing the state. Israel maintains separation between constitutional, legal and operational branches, and its citizens enjoy freedom of speech, free press and freedom of worship. But beyond these characteristics Israel’s democracy is built on ethnic foundations, preferring Jews over non-Jews. Israel discriminates systematically against Israeli–Palestinians citizens. As long as too many Israelis do not settle in 1967 territories, few will question Israel’s structure and legitimacy. But since a growing number see Israel’s expansion project as irreversible, and acknowledge the existence of one de facto discriminatory state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, Israel’s fundamental structure and right to exist in pre-June 1967 borders comes to the fore.

Demography is telling – between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean there is almost parity between Jews and Palestinians, but not equality in basic rights. Therefore, in order to save Israel and its right to self determination, an immediate operation is needed to divide Israel from its rule over Palestinians. As much as the Palestinians need their freedom, Israel must regain its legitimacy as a state — and the sooner the better.

References

[1] Europe: Choosing Between Israel and the Arabs, Interview with Avi Pazner.
[2] Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi quoted in The Economist August 17, 2006.
[3] Yezid Sayigh, “Inducing a Failed State in Palestine”, Survival, Vol. 49 No. 3 autumn 2007, pp. 7-40.
[4] European Union Institute for Security Studies, Chaillot 124, December 2010.
[5] I analysed this system in my book The Shift: Israel – Palestine from Border Conflict to Ethnic Struggle, November 2010 by C, Hurst and Columbia University, new edition 2013 by Oxford University NY.
[6] A new NGO called Shivion [Equality] was recently established to monitor and advocate against Israeli Apartheid methods. Among the founders are former Israeli Ambassadors to South Africa Alon Liel and Ilan Baruch.
[7] The Guardian Wednesday 3 February 2010.

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. Ginger Eis

      Prof. Menachem Klein’s arguments are fundamentally flawed on many levels and depict serious lack of knowledge of EU’s foreign policy activities and whom such benefits. Here is the first reason why. The EU as Supra-national State was/is not satisfied with the limited sovereign power it exercises over its member-States. The EU wanted also to become an influential global power player and broker and as such needed areas of political influence and form a political counter-weight to the United States Of America. The Arab/Israeli conflict was and remains the only global event that provided the EU the single most important opportunity to achieve this foreign policy dream. The EU realized such and BOUGHT said influence at a very high prize, i.e. bankrolling the Palestinian Authority. EU’s actions have thus wholly no humanitarian- or altruistic nature. The EU has its own interest in the conflict. The EU bought, paid and continues to pay for said influence. Such benefits Israel not. if the EU retreats from the ME political scene today, there will be only two losers: (a) the EU and (b) the PA.

      Reply to Comment
      • bob wisby

        Well said, Ginger. What you’re saying, (unless I’m mistaken) is that the EU is a great big gravy train, full of self-obsessed careerists who are only interested in the mid-east conflict because it gives them importance, and a job. Is that a fair interpretation of your words?

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Bob, I am always weary of compliments from you because they are always dressed as cake but sometime do contain poison. So which is it this time, real cake or poison? Anyway, the answer to your question is yes: the EU wants to be a World Super Power, just like the US, Russia and China. This is the goal that lies at the heart of EU’s strategic- and geopolitical ‘Calcul’. Unlike the USA that (these days) has to be begged to get involved in world events, the EU begs to be allowed to get involved. If no one is listening to the EU, the EU opens its wallet and puts money on the table. And naturally, humans are slaves to money. There is also another aspect to EU’s meddling: a number of EU-countries (such as Belgium, Ireland, Norway, etc.) are powerless and individually no match to Israel in any way. The only way these countries get to stand up to Israel (and other countries) is through/behind the EU as a global power. What do you think? Pls. no satire/sarcasm this time.

          Reply to Comment
          • bob wisby

            Greg, you write, ‘Unlike the USA that (these days) has to be begged to get involved in world events,…’ I can’t for the life of me recall who has begged the US to ‘get involved’. Do you mean Israel? I’m not sure ‘begged’ best describes Israel’s approach to Washington. And which conflicts has the US instigated in response to the begging? Do you mean Iraq and Afghanistan?
            I’m glad we agree on the point that there is no ‘moral’ component, or ‘humanitarian’ concern involved in the efforts of the EU towards the conflict here. Like the man who is a vegetarian not because he loves animals but because he hates vegetables, the EU fawns over the supposed arab ‘victims’, while encouraging the massacre of Jews, all the while pretending to value human rights etc….just more so called ‘enlightenment’ thinking. I’ve said it somewhere before, but Israel doesn’t need that kind of black magic rationality.
            So once again, we find ourselves in agreement, Ginger. And just to think, that little freak Tzutzik called me a nazi the other day. How the mighty are fallen.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            What? I got under your skin Bob?

            How did I manage to do that?

            Try and get a consistent point of view and freaks like me won’t call you names.

            Reply to Comment
          • bob wisby

            Yes, Tzutzik, you did rather hurt my feelings when you jumped up like that and started calling me a nazi. Perhaps I was over reacting when I called you a little freak. If so, I apologize.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You can never over react to being called a Nazi but if you accuse Jews of being drug pushers and wheeler dealers in human organs then I have a tendency to react to such accusations.

            Having said that, if you were just being sarcastic and I missed your sarcasm, then I apologise.

            Reply to Comment
          • bob wisby

            I think we were simply at cross purposes on the moral issues, Tzutzik. I don’t have any moral problems with some of those activities traditionally practiced by my people. Why do you feel constrained to deny what everyone knows? I say again, if the black money from Russian oligarchs, the smuggled organs from abroad, the revenues from imported ‘adult’ entertainers, the profits from military deals with dictators….if all this helps Israel’s economy, then more power to it all. Money has no smell, Tzutzik. Time for we Jews to stop being so squeamish and accept ourselves for who we are. Accept ourselves, warts and all. Surely that’s a more healthy approach than all this pandering to Western, so-called ‘enlightenment’ thinking. What would Aaron Lopez say?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            No Bob

            I only agree with you about the arms deals that Israel makes. The rest is just a blood libel.

            You may as well go back to the medieval blood libels with which we were smeared and for which we endured pogroms.

            You seem to describe yourself as Jewish. I doubt that you are. But if you are, I don’t know what shady deals you are involved in but don’t count most of the rest of us in. I know of no one who steals organs of gentiles and makes his fortune by murdering others for their organs. As for drug deals? Yea, we have our share of junkies and drug dealers like any other people. To say that is one thing. But to suggest that Israel’s economy is sustained by it, is sheer fantasy or again; a blood libel. Ditto for prostitution.

            Reply to Comment
          • bob wisby

            The problem is, Tzutzik, (as far as I can see it anyway) is that when we try to deny involvement in human trafficking, organ theft, drug dealing etc…we make ourselves look silly. If we were to simply ‘man up’ and say, “Yeah, that’s what we do, who’s gonna stop us? We’ve got guns now…” we’d look a lot more honest. And really, why pretend that these activities are immoral? Because Jesus said so? How long must we Jews labor under the yoke of a foreign, alien set of ethics? All this namby pamby ‘human rights’ nonsense just doesn’t suit our people, Tzutzik. Time to come out loud and proud. What would Aaron Lopez (the wealthiest, most important of New Englands 18th Century slave traders) say, if he could see his fellow Jews today, tangling themselves in knots trying to pretend to share a value system with the goyim?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Bob, I see your point, but your thought-process is flawed and, as such, the conclusion that flows forth from it is by necessity invalid. Here is why. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. This has, since ‘the coming-to-be’ of Judaism, been the summary of the Commandments, the Law and the Prophets and as such forms the epitome of Jewish values – centuries BEFORE “Jesus” was born. Jews are like all other Peoples of the world. We have saints and sinners. We have some of the world smartest individuals and some of the world’s dumbest Jackasses, etc. Actions taken by individual Jews and non-Jews in the exercise of their Free Will and Right Of Self-determination to pursue happiness (as they see it) and be the masters of their own destinies, may not be described as Jewish – whatever the ethnicity/faith of the actor may be.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Hey Busby ,,, oops … I mean Wisby …. oops I mean Bob …

            I have a wise Russian uncle. His name is Brith Milah. He once told me to ignore Bolshevik liars and Nazis.

            Have you got a wise uncle? What has he told you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Vadim

            Bob – There’s human crap everywhere, criminals, bad people and people that benefit from the suffering of others. There’s nothing to deny or accept, Jews have their share of this lot.

            However, it is not “us Jews” that do bad things. It’s certain Jewish individuals. Same as everywhere else. “We Jews” only deny things when the accusations are towards the entire group. Sadly, most often are.

            I’m fully aware that some Jews dealt with slaves, some trafficked prostitutes, some murdered, raped or sold weapons that were used for horrible purposes. However, it was not done by “the Jews” and this accusation is what make people overreact. We have suffered far too long because of this line of thinking.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Vadim, Ginger

            You guys are wasting your time trying to reason with this Joooo hater.

            He is simply here to bait us. Give him his own medicine instead.

            Reply to Comment
          • bob wisby

            Thanks, Vadim. At least you’re living in the real world, and of course nobody is accusing all Jews of anything. Most Jews are just hostages to a dark cult, brainwashed and frightened.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Wow BoB, that sounds almost profound and philosophical. I didn’t know you had it in you … Nah just kidding Bob, don’t let your head swell. I know you are prone to it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Marcos

            Aaron Lopez, as anyone with the capacity to think, would merely laugh at you and move on. As I am doing.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            I love the US because the US is a bad, bad boy for the good cause. The US doesn’t beg to get involved in anything nor does it buy influence. When the US wants to get involved, it will get involved. If no one will allow the US in, the US will kick down the doors and get in anyway for a better world. But to answer your question directly: (1) Libya, remember? The same people who opposed intervening in Iraq, begged the US to get involved in Libya; (2) Syria, remember? I hear outcries raging from the ME to Europe against US non-involvement; (3) the Democratic Republic Of Congo; (4) Central African Republic, etc. Europe and the Arabs want the US to get involved under two conditions: (a) the involvement has no economic benefit to the US and (b) the involvement dose not benefit the Jewish State militarily.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Kolumn9

      If one has to go back 67 years to 1947 in order to argue that Europe is not unfriendly to Israel then the argument is kind of a lost cause. One could have just as easily made the same argument for the Soviet Union when it had no embassy in Israel and it would be equally as stupid.

      The other part of the argument – that the Europeans are pro-Israel because they support the PA – is frankly one of the most retarded things that keeps getting repeated. The basis for this idea is that were the PA to collapse the Israelis would have to pick up the costs. Based on the present state of Gaza it is pretty obvious that this assumption is so obviously flawed as to be laughable.

      It would be far easier on the basis of facts to argue that European aid allows the PA to sponsor massive anti-Israeli propaganda and to maintain its obstinate position rejecting the compromises required to come to a negotiated solution with Israel. Which leads us to the fact that the EU also sponsors a massive campaign to undermine Israeli society by sponsoring pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli organizations in Israel whose sole goal is to generate negative propaganda (both internal and external) against Israel. In practice the EU (and the US) pay for the entirety of Palestinian global PR and lawfare against Israel (including organizations within Israel itself). Every single supposed alternative that the Palestinians have to actually coming to an agreement with Israel is squarely based on their ability to financially sustain their diplomatic and PR institutions which is only possible as long as EU (and US) aid continues to sponsor them. Even internally, the PA effectively sponsors attacks on Israelis by post-facto paying terrorists in prison with EU/US money. The entire Palestinian National Movement is currently reliant on the aid it receives from the EU/US. In other words, the EU continues to ensure the continuation of the conflict by explicitly and overwhelmingly sponsoring one side by directly subsidizing it with raw cash. The US at least balances this out by providing Israel with aid and ensuring Israeli qualitative superiority over the Arab armies. It can not possibly be argued that the EU does anything even remotely similar. In such a situation it really takes a warped mind to pretend that the EU is somehow pro-Israeli or balanced.

      When the PLO lost its financial backing from the Saudis in the early 1990s it was forced into the Oslo accords. Were the PLO to lose its financial backing from the EU it would be forced into a negotiated solution.

      Let me point out again that this: “Without this aid Israel would have to take on the daily life needs of more than 4 million Palestinians” is a stupid and entirely unsupportable assumption. One could just as easily imagine Israel not taking on the daily life needs of the Palestinians and waiting for them to either get desperate enough to come to an understanding. I can’t take seriously the underlying logic of this position that the “international community” is going to “force” Israel to reoccupy Jenin and Nablus and to take over garbage collection in Ramallah.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Kolumn9

      Oh, and as for the other question of whether calling it an ‘occupation’ should stop. If its not an occupation and the Israeli settlers in their third generation are legitimate residents then you are still left with partition as the only real feasible alternative to the status quo or a civil war to the death but you undermine the argument for the Palestinians insisting on the 1967 lines.

      There is, in my estimation and likely in yours, very little likelihood that Israel could be forced into a binational state or even into annexing the Palestinian-populated areas of the West Bank regardless of the make-up of any future government. As such, in the longer term, the only side which benefits from people stopping calling what is going on in the West Bank an ‘occupation’ is Israel and more specifically the Israeli right. Such a shift would strengthen Israeli claims to areas settled by Israelis and undermine the Palestinian claims to sovereignty over the same areas and would eventually result in Israel keeping larger areas of the West Bank regardless of whether it happens through unilaterally setting its own borders or negotiating a partition. Both of these scenarios are far more likely as steps an Israeli government would pursue than an annexation of the Palestinian-populated areas of the West Bank, with the Palestinians and their supporters not unlikely to ever be in a position to change the calculus.

      It would be an own goal for the Palestinians and their supports and one I am expecting is going to occur eventually, though probably after the other own goals of rejecting the Kerry plan and seeking and achieving the recognition of Palestinian statehood in various international forums.

      Reply to Comment
      • bob wisby

        Kolumn9, reading your comments makes me understand a little of what the British Palestinian Police had to endure when confronted with boatloads of clamoring refugees, at the ports of Jaffo and Haifa. It must have been galling for the British, to find themselves being run in circles by desperate, articulate, and somewhat overbearing Jews, in the unkempt state of boat-refugees. There literally was no answering them. Mad as Hottentots, as Voltaire pointed out.

        Reply to Comment
    4. Ginger Eis

      “Israel is indeed a parliamentary democracy. It maintains regular, free, open and democratic elections that create a real competition for governing the state. Israel maintains separation between constitutional, legal and operational branches, and its citizens enjoy freedom of speech, free press and freedom of worship. But beyond these characteristics Israel’s democracy is built on ethnic foundations, preferring Jews over non-Jews. Israel discriminates systematically against Israeli–Palestinians citizens.”

      The question that arise as a result are the following: (a) What else is democracy? (b) Is there any democracy in the ENTIRE world that is not “built on ethnic foundations” (name at least ONE country where ethnicity/race is the majority-determining-factor!)? (c) In what way(s) does Israel “systematically discriminates against Israeli–Palestinians citizens”? By not forcing them to join the army, go to war and die for their country as all Jewish Israelis are forced to? By subsidizing/paying for their education and healthcare, etc.? Israel-bashing is not just lucrative business, but really getting insane!

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Correction:

        Wrong: “name at least ONE country where ethnicity/race is the majority-determining-factor!”

        Correct is: “name at least ONE country where ethnicity/race is NOT the majority-determining-factor!”

        (My apologies for the typo)

        Reply to Comment
        • shachalnur

          Brazil,Mexico,Trinidad and Tobago,Guatemala,Belize,Honduras,Nicaragua,Panama,Colombia,Venezuela,Ecuador,peru,Bolivia,Paraguay,Guyana,Suriname…

          And I strongly object you implying Judaism is a race.

          It must be your “Jewish genes” causing you to scream your racist ignorance three times in a row,with typo’s y todo.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            (1) Peru is a noun. The applicable rules of grammar demand that said word be written with a capital- not small letter. Said rules also dictate that there must be a space b/w every two words, etc. Thus, before you ever dare pick a fight because of a corrected typo, put your house in order first! (2) My post contains the words: “ethnicity/race”. Nowhere in said post did I say or imply that “Judaism is a race” as you claim. It seems you are too desperate to find faults (given the beating you received during the last encounter!). That’s fine with me but try to be honest at least. (3) To the point: (a) you named several countries. That’s a good beginning, but you failed to show (b) the ethnic/racial make-up said countries, (c) that said countries are democracies and (d) that the elected government, i.e. the Parliament and the Executive, of said countries is not dominated by the ethnic/racial group(s) that form(s) the majority of the total population. That’s how to engage in a constructive debate. Would you like to do that? Or would you rather make short outbursts and resort to nastiness?

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Under different circumstances it might be fun interacting with you,but you lack a sense of humor,and you’re dribble becomes insufferable.

            I’ll give you some advice:

            Better to remain silent and be thought a fool,than to speak and remove all doubt.

            Reply to Comment
          • bob wisby

            What a very rude comment, shachalnur. Are you sure you’re not a Jew?

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Shalom Bob,

            What is so rude about a quote by Abraham Lincoln?

            Unless you’ve got a sense of humor.

            I hope so,because that’s something in short supply in the comment section on this site.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            My friend Shachalnur, I see you are on the run (under false pretense)? Maybe the required argument is too difficult for you to make (for obvious reasons)? OK, how about the Netherlands with regard to which you made the following claims: “I grew up right in the middle of this cesspool called the Dutch Elite. I went to the same school and class as the current Prime Minister,and several other politicians and powerbrokers in Holland,” etc. PLEASE, PLEASE my good friend, I beg you to use your mastery of the Netherlands to demonstrate that this most liberal Western democracy is ‘a democracy that is NOT built on ethnic foundations’. PLEASE?

            Anyone, including yourself, Mr. Noam Sheizaf and Prof. Menachem Klein, who is able answer my question and (a) prove me wrong and thus (b) affirm Prof. Klein’s claim, will win $50 (!).

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Ginger Eis,you asked “name at least ONE country where ethnicity/race is NOT the majority -determining-factor”.

            I gave you a list of 16 countries that fit this description.

            That will be 16 x $50 = $800.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            All you have to do is demonstrate that the country/countries you mention are (a) democracies, (b) made up of different ethnic/racial groups and (c) that the elected government, i.e. the Parliament and the Executive, of said countries is not dominated by the ethnic/racial group(s) that form(s) the majority of the total population. This is a very simple equation to solve. Just mentioning countries is not the answer. You must run the “a-b-c”-tests, step by step, to show that mentioned country/countries meet(s) ALL three tests. It might be useful to use Western countries since you are more familiar with them, while the democratic nature of most, if not all the countries you mentioned, is very questionable (and thus may not even survive the first test). Start with the Netherlands, i.e. the country you grew up in among its elite.

            Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            Ginger,

            I hope +972 doesn’t mind the comment board filling up with retard ping-pong,and to be serious in a “debate” with you is not easy,but I’ll try.

            A. Democracies.

            Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

            The sixteen countries I mentioned all have a written constitution,and that’s a lot more democratic than a certain country we know ,claiming to be one.

            b. and c. ethnic make-up:

            These countries lack any one ethnic group that constitutes more than 50% of the population.

            Unless you call “mestizo” an ethnic group.

            I know nothing about living in a modern Western country,since I left Holland 30 years ago.

            This might be one of the reasons I still have all my hair,never get sick,have 6 healthy children,and no mental issues.

            Yesh mevien?

            Orale pues!

            Donde esta mi lana,Cabron?

            Reply to Comment
    5. Johnboy

      Klein’s argument is essentially no different from that put forward by the Levi report on Israeli settlements.

      Levi’s argument was this:
      1) Military occupations are supposed to be a temporary state of affairs.
      2) Israel clearly intends to control the West Bank forever.
      3) Points (1)+(2) are mutually-exclusive, so…
      4) …everyone should just get over it, and accept that Israel has moved “beyond” occupation.

      What Israel has moved *to* is left nameless, but in Levi’s report it clearly amounts to “Israel can now do whatever it wants because it alone now writes the rules”.

      The “logic” is flawed, because it posits that when someone violates the law often enough then he will have single-handedly re-written the law to his own benefit.

      No, he hasn’t.

      All he has done is become a career criminal, a serial breaker-of-the-law.

      It is the same with Israel and the West Bank: don’t say that Israel’s conduct has moved this “beyond occupation” – that simply plays into their hand – instead point out that Israel has been and still is doing amounts to a very serious “war crime”.

      Because, indeed, that’s exactly what Israel’s conduct amounts to.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Ginger Eis

      “I find myself in agreement with the conclusion of academics and security experts, that in a case of Israeli withdraw from most of the West Bank and the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state with its capital in Arab Jerusalem, a sort of armed resistance by radical settlers can be expected. This may be our civil war, a traumatic event (…). Only massive external pressure can bring the Israeli government to confront armed Jewish resistance (…).”

      This fantasy is wrong for several reasons: (a) the “armed resistance” will not come from “radical settlers”. The Israeli Right AND (Center) Left will not allow your fantasy to even enter mainstream political discourse, let alone materialize in an agreement, (b) said fantasy will not result to “a civil war” or be a “traumatic event”, it will be the beginning of the end of the Jewish State and devastation of the Jewry. Regardless, it is good to know that organized Jewish Lunatics know exactly where they are driving the entire Jewry to – while being paid large sums of money by hostile foreign governments!

      Reply to Comment
    7. Tzutzik

      “instead point out that Israel has been and still is doing amounts to a very serious “war crime”.”

      Nonsense, Johnboy.

      FACT: Israel took possession of the WB in a defensive war.

      FACT: The Palestinians are trying to impose their terms. Otherwise they say “No peace”

      FACT: There never was an Arab state known as independent Palestine. Therefore an Arab Palestinian state has no defined borders.

      FACT: UN Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw from territories it ended up controlling after the 1967 war. But NOT from ALL the territories. It spoke of secure and recognised borders to be agreed upon through negotiations.

      FACT: I need to say this again because you guys are too thick to absorb this fact. The Palestinians are not negotiating. They are trying to dictate terms of surrender.

      Hence the occupation continues. Get it Johnboy? And when I talk about “occupation”, I mean Arab population centres because only those bits of the WB are definitely destined to be part of a new state called Palestine (if it ever happens). The other bits, the unpopulated crown lands, are not occupied those are disputed lands. The sooner the Palis compromise the more of it they may get. The more they remain intransigent, the less they will get.

      Comprehendo, Johnboy?

      Reply to Comment
      • Johnboy

        Nonsense, Tzutzik.

        Whether Israel “took” the West Bank is a “defensive war”, an “offensive war”, a “oops, it just kinda’ happened that way war” is utterly irrelevant.

        Israel seized this territory BY WAR, and by definition that makes Israel an “occupier”, not an “owner”, and so For As Long As Israel Continues To Occupy This Territory Then It Is Required To Follow The Laws Pertaining To Belligerent Occupations (Article 6 of Geneva Convention IV, if you want to look it up).

        Israel refuses i.e. Israel insists on maintaining this endless occupation while also insisting on acting *as* *if* it now owns this territory and can colonize the West Bank as it sees fit.

        Q: Is that a war crime?
        A: According to Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court the answer is: “Why, yes. Yes, it is”.

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          Nonsense Johnboy

          The 1967 boundaries were just armistice lines which were established in 1949. By mutual agreement, no, in fact at the insistence of the Arabs, the text of the 1949 armistice agreement openly states that these boundaries are not to be final borders which would need to be established as part of ending the war. I guess, the Arabs were hoping to gain more territories, go figure, Johnboy.

          In other words, Johnboy, the war did not end in 1949. There was only an armistice which the Arabs periodically broke with terrorist raids and for which of course they suffered Israeli retaliation. Again, go figure …

          In other words, there was a lull between two major battles between 1949 and 1967 after which we had new defacto armistice lines.

          Given all that Johnboy, and given that there NEVER was a sovereign Arab Muslim Palestinian state, we don’t know what the borders of such a state are. Ergo, the borders are subject to negotiations. Ergo, we don’t have occupied territories, we only have disputed territories. Strictly speaking this includes Israel proper itself. Legally speaking, Israel itself is disputed territory and can be claimed by both parties. Indeed, Hamas is doing exactly that. It is claiming all of Israel for the Muslim Arabs. Of course, they won’t get it. But that is another story. And yes, Israel too can be as bloody minded and claim everything for itself. The fact that many Israelis (probably most) choose to be realistic and they don’t claim all of the WB, does not mean that we don’t have right to some of it. Certainly for security reasons. Certainly for historical reasons and certainly because of facts on the ground.

          Kapish, now, Johnboy?

          Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “The 1967 boundaries were just armistice lines”….

            I’m gonna stop you right there and point out exactly why everything that follows that quote is nonsense.

            I am talking TERRITORY, and you are talking about the status of a squiggly line on a map.

            Tzutzik, dude, OCCUPATION is something that happens to TERRITORY, it is not something that happens to a squiggly line on a map.

            And this is a fact: in June 1967 the IDF seized TERRITORY that did not belong to the state of Israel, and by doing so it fulfilled the One And Only Criteria for the establishment of a belligerent occupation.

            And for every second of every day that has followed that fact this is been a belligerent occupation, and so for every moment that has followed the events of June 1967 the state of Israel has been obliged by int’l law to behave AS AN OCCUPYING POWER.

            And Israel refuses: like you the state of Israel insists on pretending that it is free to act as if it owns this territory, without once actually claiming out loud that it does own this territory.

            That’s illegal.
            That’s a war crime.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Dude you don’t know what you are talking about.

            In order to occupy a land, one needs to define it’s boundaries. And no, an armistice line does not do that. It is just an arbitrary squiggly line which marks where the battle ended.

            So if you don’t know the exact boundaries of the land in question and you move from battle to the political arena to try and negotiate it, then in the meanwhile, that land is not occupied it is disputed. It is called logic 101, Johnboy. You need to go and study logic 101.

            But if you insist, then I will acknowledge this: The Palestinian Arabs as a people are occupied. The land that belongs to them, at this point of time is not determined, therefore the land is disputed.

            Kapish, Johnboy?

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “In order to occupy a land, one needs to define it’s boundaries.”

            No, ignorance personified.

            Article 42, Hague Regulations 1907:
            “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”

            All that is required is this:
            a) The territory not be “Israeli territory” and
            b) The territory needs to be placed under the control of the “Israeli army” and
            c) This territory then becomes “Israeli occupied territory”.

            Nothing more is required.

            Nothing else needs to be “defined”.

            The Israel High Court of Justice understands this perfectly well, which is why the IHCJ case “Beit Sourik” contains these gems:
            “1. Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation.”

            and this

            “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).”

            Tzutzik: “Kapish, Johnboy?”

            You are actually sooooo ignorant that you don’t even realize you have no idea what you are talking about.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Article 42, Hague Regulations 1907:
            “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”

            No, ignorance personified. That refers to two countries with defined borders. There never existed a sovereign Arab Palestine so such a country has no defined borders, yet. By the same token, Israel’s final borders were never recognised either even though the country of Israel was recognised by the majority of UN nation states.

            Read my lips Johnboy:

            1. There was the British mandate territory which was known as Palestine.

            2. There were two rival peoples living in Palestine.

            a) Arabs

            b) Jews

            In 1948, after the end of British rule, a civil war erupted between those two rival groups out of which a Jewish state called Israel emerged and in the remainder of Palestine, the WB, the state of Jordan took control. The demarcation line between the WB and the state of Israel was recognised as a temporary armistice line pending final negotiations of a final border. As it turned out, after a brief lull, periodic skirmishes between the two groups, Arabs and Jews, continued. Till in 1967 after another major battle, the armistice line shifted and Israel took control of the rest of Palestine.

            Also, after the 1967 war/battle, which the Jordanians started, the UN Security Council issued a new resolution 242. It reiterated the philosophy that was formulated in 1949. It mandated that secure and recognised borders are to be NEGOTIATED, not imposed on anyone. It mandated that Israel is to return from the new territories that it acquired but NOT from ALL the territories. The the two criteria were secure borders and recognised borders.

            So JB, even with the best of intentions, your article 42 cannot apply. It cannot because there is no way to know which of the two armies was the hostile army. Was it the Jordanian army between 1949 and 1967? Since Jordan’s annexation of the WB was not recognised or is the Israeli army the hostile army since 1967? The answer is that both were but not necessarily on all parts of the WB since the final recognised border will never be the 1949 armistice lines. Yet, clearly, parts of the WB will belong to the Pali Arabs but we don’t know which bits.

            Of course, once borders will be negotiated and recognised by all parties whenever a new peace deal is reached, your article 42 WILL be applicable should one party or another acquire territories beyond such recognised borders in any possible new war.

            Before then? Your article 42 is just nonsense because there is no way of knowing which bits of the WB belong to Arabs and which bits of it belong to Israel.

            Whew … Sigh … Boring. How many more times will I need to explain this to you JB?

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “That refers to two countries with defined borders.”

            Again, the blathering of someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

            In 1945 the Hague Regulations were declared to be “declaratory of the laws AND CUSTOMS of war” i.e. they apply to any and all situations where (a) a foreign army (b) seizes territory that does not belong to it.

            Or, as the Israel High Court of Justice so succinctly said in the Beit Sourik case: “The authority of the military commander flows from the provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation. These rules are established principally in the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 [hereinafter – the Hague Regulations]. These regulations reflect customary international law.”

            THESE. REGULATIONS. REFLECT. CUSTOMARY. INTERNATIONAL. LAW.

            Be honest and admit it: you have not the faintest idea what you are talking about.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You are the one who is blathering JB. Not only that but you are obfuscating by bringing up irrelevant laws that simply do not apply.

            Sigh, again, here is what happened in 1948; civil war broke out between Jews and Arabs. In 1949, after a cease fire, armistice lines were drawn up. These lines were specifically stated in the text of the armistice agreement as temporary lines. But you are trying to ignore that and pretend that the 1949 armistice lines, somehow by magic turned into borders by 1967. That is simply NOT true. The 1967 battle, yes I call it battle because it was a continuation of the same WAR that was started by the Arabs in 1948. The 1967 battle simply shifted the armistice lines further into new temporary lines and new cease fire boundaries. This time encompassing all of historical western Palestine.

            So, JB, stop trying to pretend that the 1949 armistice lines (which are the 1967 boundaries) somehow by magic turned into recognised borders. All that happened was that the battle lines were shifted in the same war. End of story. And your silly laws that you conjure up were written for situations where two sovereign powers are at war with each other and one ends up occupying the other’s territory. This is not what happened in Palestine where neither side of the warring parties, to this day, has recognised borders.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “Not only that but you are obfuscating by bringing up irrelevant laws that simply do not apply.”

            !!!!!!!!

            You get up on your soapbox and blithely declare that these laws are “irrelevant”. That they “simply do not apply”.

            And you do that **after** I have pointed out **twice** that I am quoting from the ISRAEL High Court of Justice in a case involving the separation wall in the West Bank.

            Dude, you can’t get Any More Relevant Than That.

            Sunshine, I can’t quote from a More Relevant Source Of Authority that the *Israel* *Supreme* *Court*.

            Q: And what does that ISRAELI Supreme Court say?
            A: It says that this is a belligerent occupation, that Israel is the occupying power, and that all authority for this occupier derives from the applicability of the Hague Regulations to this belligerent occupation.

            Honestly, take off your blinkers.

            Do that and you’ll see that the ISRAELI Supreme Court is telling you that YOU ARE WRONG.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Go back and read what I said earlier sunshine. What I said, does not disagree with what the Israeli Supreme Court said. It does disagree with your conclusions though. I won’t repeat myself to tell you why. I already explained it to you several times.

            Never mind, JB, just keep on preaching from YOUR soap box and keep YOUR blinkers on.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            JB again:

            “The court did not rule on “[t]he question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention” because “[t]he question is not before us now, since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review”

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “The court did not rule on “[t]he question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention” because “[t]he question is not before us now, since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review”

            !!!Talk about moving goalposts!!!

            YOU said this was not a belligerent occupation.

            I said it was, and I showed you *exactly* where the Israel High Court of Justice agreed with me that you were wrong.

            YOU said that the Hague Regulations do not apply to this situation.

            I said that it did, and I showed you *exactly* where the IHCJ agreed with me that you were wrong.

            YOU said that the Hague Regulations applied only to war between two states.

            I said that the Hague Regulations are “declaratory of the laws AND CUSTOMS of war”, and I quoted *exactly* where the IHCJ agrees with me that you are wrong.

            And ***now*** you come back and start talking about the applicability of the Geneva Conventions!!!!!!

            It’s almost as if you have not the slightest understanding that the Hague Regulations are not the Geneva Conventions.

            Dude, you can keep moving the goalposts as far and as often as you like, and every time you do so you are displaying the bottomless depth of your utter ignorance.

            You have been entirely and completely wrong in **everything** that you have said so far, and suddenly pulling the Geneva Conventions out of a hat like some lame magician’s trick does not change that one iota.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “What I said, does not disagree with what the Israeli Supreme Court said. It does disagree with your conclusions though.”

            !!!!!!

            Time for a recap, because my ignorant friend has managed to forget what it is that he is arguing about.

            Tzutzik said this:
            “In order to occupy a land, one needs to define it’s boundaries.”

            The IHCJ said this:
            “1. Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation”

            The court is therefore telling you that you are W.R.O.N.G.

            Tzutzik also said this:
            “That [Art 42 of the Hague Regs] refers to two countries with defined borders.”

            The court said this:
            “These regulations reflect customary international law.”

            The court is therefore telling you that you are W.R.O.N.G. i.e. the Hague Regulations are CUSTOMARY law, and therefore apply to any situation where a foreign army seizes control of territory.

            Tzutzik also said this:
            “Not only that but you are obfuscating by bringing up irrelevant laws that simply do not apply.”

            The court said this:
            “The authority of the military commander flows from the provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation. These rules are established principally in the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 [hereinafter – the Hague Regulations].”

            The court is clearly saying that you are W.R.O.N.G. i.e. the Hague Regulations ****are**** the relevant and applicable law w.r.t. the authority of the IDF in this occupied territory.

            That you ***then*** start quoting the court regarding the applicability (or otherwise) of the GENEVA CONVENTIONS to this occupation is, of course, the classic example of an irrelevance.

            We have, you and I, gone back and forth regarding the applicability of the HAGUE REGULATIONS to this occupation, so why do you suddenly pull the GENEVA CONVENTIONS from out to that place where the sun don’t shine?

            Ans: because you are attempting to move the goalposts.

            Honestly, you are beyond pathetic.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You really are beginning to bore me JB. Nice selective quoting of what I said but you conveniently forgot to present this little item which I posted in my earlier post:

            “So JB, even with the best of intentions, your article 42 cannot apply. It cannot because there is no way to know which of the two armies was the hostile army. Was it the Jordanian army between 1949 and 1967? Since Jordan’s annexation of the WB was not recognised or is the Israeli army the hostile army since 1967? The answer is that both were but not necessarily on all parts of the WB since the final recognised border will never be the 1949 armistice lines. Yet, clearly, parts of the WB will belong to the Pali Arabs but we don’t know which bits.”

            REMINDER: read the bit

            “…. the answer is that they both were …”

            So you see? Contrary to your assertion, What I said and what the Israeli Supreme Court said are not in contradiction with each other.

            And talking about moving goal posts read again what I said in my last post before this one:

            “The court did not rule on “[t]he question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention” because “[t]he question is not before us now, since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review”

            Which bit of “The court did not rule on “[t]he question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention” don’t you understand????

            Keep on obfuscating JB. Keep it up. That’s the only talent you seem to truly possess.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “So JB, even with the best of intentions, your article 42 cannot apply.”

            !!!!!!!!!

            You clearly do not understand a single, solitary thing that the ISRAEL HIGH COURT is telling you.

            I’ll repeat it (again):
            “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).”

            Now, WHY does the court have to make that finding?

            I know why, but Tzutzik is utterly clueless.

            Here, I’ll help him out (again):
            “The authority of the military commander flows from the provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation. These rules are established principally in the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 [hereinafter – the Hague Regulations]. These regulations reflect customary international law.”

            Got that?

            The court had to rule on the legality of the IDF commander in the West Bank issuing a military order to construct the separation wall.

            The court must – obviously! – first decide what is the legal authority for the IDF commander to issue **any** military order in the West Bank and then – having found that basis – to decide if **this** military order exceeds **that** authority.

            Q: OK, so what is the legal basis for the IDF commander’s authority to issue military orders?
            A: Easy. This is a belligerent occupation, ergo, the IDF commander’s authority derives from Articles 42-55 of the Hague Regulations.

            My argumentative friend can not get that simple fact through his skull.

            I understand that this is the problem, but what I can’t understand is **why** he can’t get that simple fact through his thick little skull.

            After all, the Israeli High Court of Justice spells it out for him, and I do believe that I have pointed him to that ruling time after time after time after time.

            Apparently he can’t comprehend that simple concept i.e. the IHCJ is telling him that he is WRONG, and he simply refuses to comprehend that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            I am not repeating myself again, you boring and abusive little man. Learn to have an intelligent discussion in which you actually address and debunk your adversary’s argument instead of putting words in their mouth and debunking what they don’t say. You know what that style of argument is called JB? It is called, building a straw man then proceeding to demolish it. Good luck with that, you clown.

            I hope that what I just said won’t get you to foam at the mouth which is what you seem to be progressively doing lately in your lengthy and obdurate posts. Calm down JB and start addressing my actual arguments not the ones that you imagine me to make.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            One more try.

            The context of the Israeli High Court ruling was in relation to the security fence.

            Yes, they called the occupation belligerent occupation which I also said. See above.

            The court ordered the re-routing of a section of the fence, not all of it. The ruling was based on the fact that the hardship that the fence caused in those areas outweighed the security concerns of Israel.

            And no, the court did NOT force Israel to follow the contours of the green line (the 1967 boundaries).

            Finally: the court did not rule about the applicability, or lack of the FOURTH Geneva convention Which amongst other things, includes the prohibition of transferring one’s own population to “occupied” territories. Kapish JB? The court did not rule on that so there is no contradiction between what I said and what the Israeli High Court said.

            To put that into context, Israel’s position is that it agrees to abide by the humanitarian aspects of the Geneva conventions but it claims that in reality, the Geneva conventions don’t apply to the WB for the reasons that I stated above as well as other reasons that I have not mentioned yet. Yet the Israeli high court did NOT over-rule that interpretation. End of story. No contradiction. Kapish, JB?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            So JB answer this then:

            Because of the Israeli HC ruling, Israel was forced to re-route a 30km section of the security fence. In other words, the Israeli HC has teeth. It can force the Israeli government to do things that the Government does NOT like. So how come the Israeli HC did not force Israel to dismantle all the “settlements” and move the population back to Israel?

            You claim that the ruling of “belligerent occupation” automatically renders the settlements illegal even according to the Israeli HC. But clearly it does NOT!!!! Otherwise, the “settlements” would be an old story by now.

            Well JB? Answer that one, show me where the contradiction is between what I said and what the Israeli High Court said?

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “So how come the Israeli HC did not force Israel to dismantle all the “settlements” and move the population back to Israel?”

            You can’t seriously be pretending that you don’t know the answer.

            Dude, the IHCJ is a *supporter* of the Zionist enterprise. Nobody gets to sit on it unless they are thoroughly committed to the colonization of all of Greater Israel.

            But it is also a **court**, and so it must make the effort to smear at least a veneer of lipstick on that pig.

            Honestly, are you for real?

            You’ve already quoted the trick that the court pulls to avoid having no choice but to order the Israeli govt to dismantle all settlements.

            It’s here: “[t]he question is not before us now,”

            The court knows full well (much better than you, obviously) that if it ever **was** forced to rule on that “question” then it would have no choice but to answer: Yes, the Geneva Conventions apply here and, yes, these settlements are illegal according to that convention”.

            The court **KNOWS** that, which is why the court **ALWAYS** refuses to ever consider that question.

            It simply puts it to one side with a blithe Let’s-Not-Worry-About-That-Just-Now.

            But here’s the rub: the court can’t pull that same trick w.r.t. the Hague Regulations, precisely because those regulations are international CUSTOMARY law.

            Get it now?

            No, of course you don’t.

            The Hague Regs are CUSTOMARY law, and therefore it is pointless for the court to argue whether or not they apply to this occupation, precisely because the very definition of a CUSTOMARY law ensures that it applies to all occupations.

            The court therefore has no choice: it must apply the Hague Regs to the actions of the IDF commander.

            But the court **doesn’t** want to apply Geneva Convention IV to the actions of the IDF Commander, precisely because the court knows what the outcome would be i.e. the court would have no choice but to rule that the entire settlement enterprise is illegal.

            And. The. Court. Doesn’t. WANT. To. Do. That.

            Q: Why not?

            Because. The. Entire. Bench. Is. Composed. Of. Hardcore. Zionists.

            Got it now, dude?

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “The court did not rule on that so there is no contradiction between what I said and what the Israeli High Court said.”

            Honestly, you are deluding yourself.

            You SAID that the Hague Regulations do not apply to this occupation.

            You SAID that, and I am quite correct to point out that the court flatly contradicted you.

            You SAID that the Hague Regulations only apply when the war is between two states.

            You SAID that, and I am quite correct to point out that the court flatly contradicted you.

            You SAID that the Hague Regulations are neither applicable to nor relevant to this occupation.

            You SAID that, and I am quite correct to point out that the court flatly contradicted you.

            So there are multiple issues where you say something only for the court to flatly contradict you, yet you still have the unmitigated gall to claim that “there is no contradiction between what I said and what the Israeli High Court said.”

            Dude, that’s beyond chutzpah…

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “Yes, they called the occupation belligerent occupation which I also said”

            Well, what an extraordinary statement.

            Proof that my argumentative little friend has forgotten what he was arguing about.

            Here, to refresh….

            I said: “in June 1967 the IDF seized TERRITORY that did not belong to the state of Israel, and by doing so it fulfilled the One And Only Criteria for the establishment of a belligerent occupation.”

            To which YOU replied: “In order to occupy a land, one needs to define it’s boundaries.”

            Apparently Tzutzik can argue that:
            a) I am wrong. This is *not* an occupation because there are “no defined boundaries”
            while also arguing that:
            b) The court is correct. This *is* an occupation because, well, because he wasn’t aware that the court had said so, and so now he has to do a backflip.

            Which amounts to him holding two mutually-exclusive positions within the space of one talkback thread.

            Chutzpah, thy name is “Tzutzik”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: …”debunk your adversary’s argument instead of putting words in their mouth and debunking what they don’t say.”

            Soooo, let’s look at what Tzutzik **did** say.

            Tzutzik: “In order to occupy a land, one needs to define it’s boundaries.”

            DEBUNKED, care of the IHCJ.

            Tzutzik: “That [Art 42 of the Hague Regs] refers to two countries with defined borders.”

            DEBUNKED, care of the IHCJ.

            Tzutzik: “Not only that but you are obfuscating by bringing up irrelevant laws that simply do not apply.”

            DEBUNKED, care of the IHCJ.

            Those were ***your*** words, sunshine.

            Those were ***your*** arguments, dude.

            And each and every one of them was demonstrably w.r.o.n.g., and were demonstrated to be wrong by ISRAEL’s OWN HIGH COURT.

            *sheesh* All I can do is lead the donkey to water, I can’t make him drink…

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Tzutzik: “Yes, they called the occupation belligerent occupation which I also said”

            Johnboy:”Well, what an extraordinary statement.

            Proof that my argumentative little friend has forgotten what he was arguing about”

            Now I am calling you a Liar JB not just a windbag who obfuscates. In a very recent post I showed you a direct quote of what I said. Here it is, I’ll narrow it down further.

            Tzutzik:”Since Jordan’s annexation of the WB was not recognised or is the Israeli army the hostile army since 1967? The answer is that both were”

            Which bit of the words “they both were” don’t you understand? I said that both armies were can be described as hostile armies in the WB. Why are you trying to deny that I didn’t dispute the hostile occupation argument? Go read the full context of my post. Thats what I said and thats what I meant. Stop denying it.

            What I did dispute though is your argument that the exact boundaries of what is to be Arab land and what is to be Jewish land are pre-defined. They are not. And therefore, I said that the best way to describe the land is disputed land. I also said in another post that the Palestinian Arabs as a people are under occupation.

            Now JB be man enough to admit that you have now resorted to lying to distort what I have or have not said.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            … of course, if you don’t understand what I am saying then just ask me to explain further instead of pompously pontificating.

            A word of advice JB. Don’t tell people what THEY are NOT saying. Only fools try to assert that someone else is NOT saying what the other is CLEARLY saying that he IS saying.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “A word of advice JB. Don’t tell people what THEY are NOT saying.”

            **chortle**
            What. They. Are. NOT. Saying.
            **chortle**

            Here is a quote: “In order to occupy a land, one needs to define it’s boundaries.”

            Now, are you really denying that you said that? Really?

            Oh, and here’s another: “That [Art 42 of the Hague Regs] refers to two countries with defined borders”

            Please, are you going to claim that you didn’t say that?

            Hmmm, how ’bout this: “Not only that but you are obfuscating by bringing up irrelevant laws that simply do not apply.”

            Someone else said that, did they? Not you?

            Because it does seem to me that each one of those lamentably-incorrect statements was uttered by ***you***, they were not uttered by ***me***.

            Yet there you are (“Don’t tell people what THEY are NOT saying”) apparently disowning your own words.

            As I said, beyond chutzpah….

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “Now I am calling you a Liar JB ”

            Quite astonishing.

            I reproduced the quote where Tzutzik argued that this can’t be a belligerent occupation BECAUSE a belligerent occupation requires “defined boundaries”.

            Here, I’ll do it again:
            Tzutzik: “In order to occupy a land, one needs to define it’s boundaries.”

            Now, are you denying that you ever said that?

            Because, so sorry, you most definitely did say that.

            Soooooo, I’ll repeat this again because it never gets old:

            In the space of a single talkback thread you have argued both:
            a) That this CAN NOT BE an occupation because there are no defined boundaries
            and:
            b) That this MUST BE an occupation because both you and the court say it is.

            Those two positions are mutually-exclusive, yet you have held both those positions in the one thread.

            Sooooo, please, explain to me how **I** am lying when it is **you** who has been arguing two mutually-exclusive propositions.

            Please, enlighten us all….

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            JB you are a fool. You reproduced quotes that you interpret any which way you seem to like.

            I reproduced a quote in which I said BOTH Jordan’s and Israel’s armies can be considered as hostile entities entities.

            I also said this:

            “But if you insist, then I will acknowledge this: The Palestinian Arabs as a people are occupied. The land that belongs to them, at this point of time is not determined, therefore the land is disputed”

            But let’s get teal. This is what you said in your very first post about Israel’s occupation:

            JB:”instead point out that Israel has been and still is doing amounts to a very serious “war crime”

            You also claimed that Israel’s HC/SC disagrees with me and implied that they agree with your interpretation.

            If so, then how come Israel’s HC/SC did not order the dismantling of the “settlements”?

            Are you saying that they did but they haven’t got the authority to do it? Then how come they had the authority to dismantle and re-route parts of the security barrier?

            So tell me JB, you puffed up little peackock? Have you lied? Or are you just clueless? Because if their interpretation of the law would be closer to yours than to mine, then none of the “settlements” would exist anymore.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You might also explain this to me JB (sarcasm).

            In 1948 Israel ended up with part of What was historic Western Palestine. In other words it acquired lands in a war.

            In 1967, in the continuation of the same war, Israel won additional territories after it was attacked again.

            Your claim is that Israel is not entitled to keep any of the land that it won in 1967 because land cannot be acquired through war. Yet you don’t make the same claim about the land that Israel acquired in the 1948 war? How come? After all, no one can seriously dispute the fact that both the 1948 and the 1967 wars are parts of the same continuous war between the two sides.

            I thought that laws are meant to be consistent. Not arbitrary. Why are the rules different, according to you for 1948 and 1967?

            I know the answer and you know it too JB. Because two rival people have been fighting over Palestine and although most people accept the concept of the two state solution, at no stage have the borders of the two states been finalised.

            Thus, it would have been silly to make a demand on Israel to turn over the land that it won in 1948/49 because it would have meant that the Jews would have ended up with no land and the Arabs would have ended up with all the land even though they were the losers in a war in which the Arabs were the aggressors. That would not have been exactly fair would it JB?

            Yes but how come you deem the same thing to be fair after 1967? After all, 1967 was still part of the same continuous war that the 1948 war was.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “Yet you don’t make the same claim about the land that Israel acquired in the 1948 war? How come? ”

            Oh, man, such an easy one.

            The answer: in 1993 the PLO offered to agree to cede all claims to that territory in any future peace agreement with the state of Israel.

            That de facto (but not de jure, since that peace treaty still hasn’t been signed) concession by the PLO made the issue that you referred to into a “moot point”.

            I’m sure you don’t understand what a “moot point” is, so let me explain: in this case it meant that while Israel wasn’t ENTITLED to claim that territory for itself nonetheless the Palestinians were willing to CONCEDE that territory to Israel in order to secure an end to this endless conflict.

            That being, of course, both:
            a) a concession that utterly dwarves anything ever offered by Israel, and
            b) a concession that the Palestinians were perfectly entitled to offer, since “ceding territory” to someone else is something that any sovereign can do.

            Anything else I can help you with?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “The answer: in 1993 the PLO offered to agree to cede all claims to that territory in any future peace agreement with the state of Israel.”

            And your answer is a silly answer. Silly because the question that it begs is what about before 1993?

            Before 1993, the Arabs conceded nothing. In fact, before 1967, Israel did not even control the WB. It only controlled the land that it conquered in the 1948 war.

            Yet no one, other than the Arabs and their faithful allies, demanded that Israel should give up the lands that it acquired in the 1948 war.

            So JB, my friend, my question still stands. Can you answer it? What was so different between 1948 and after 1967? Why are the rules supposed to be different? My opinion is the answer is given with ONE WORD: – POLITICS. Here I’ll spell it for you: P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S.
            What is your answer?

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “And your answer is a silly answer. Silly because the question that it begs is what about before 1993?”

            Another easy one: you need only refer to the 1949 Armistice Agreements to find your answer.

            Because if you do read that Armistice Agreement you’ll see that both Israel and the Arabs agreed that Israel’s continued control over that territory did not amount to an acknowledgement of Israeli sovereignty.

            Israel seized that territory by war, and so no matter how often and how loudly Israel yelled that This Was Now Israeli Territory the Armistice agreement (which Israel signed, remember) said otherwise.

            Int’l law is quite clear on this issue, and the Armistice Agreement was in perfect compliance with those laws i.e. this was Israeli OCCUPIED territory, and Israel had no authority under international law to unilaterally declare that: It’s now mine! Mine! All mine!

            It wasn’t, and as a matter of international law it still isn’t, and it won’t be until that final peace treaty is signed.

            But (did I point this out before? I think I did) that matter of sovereignty de jure has been rendered moot by the Palestinian offer that they **will** agree to cede all that territory in any future peace treaty.

            It’s the difference between “de jure” and “de facto”, but I’m sure that is yet another concept about which you are utterly – and deliberately – ignorant.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Thank you JB, you just confirmed what I have been saying all along. The borders of Israel and the prospective Palestinian Arab state were never defined.

            But you still did not answer my question:

            How come the non Arab world was not urging Israel to give up all the land that they won through war in 1948? The Arab world and their faithful allies were screaming for it before 1967 but most of the rest of the world did not back up their demand. Yet, because the politics shifted, there is a claim that Israel has to relinquish ALL territories it won in 1967. Even territories that were previously populated by Jews but from which Jews were ethnically cleansed by Arabs in 1948 and which Israel won back in 1967.

            The latter bit is analogous to claiming that France committed war crimes against Germany because it took back French lands that Germany conqured at the early stages of the war. A rediculous proposition but it seems anything goes against Israel.

            I tell you JB there is a lot of politics, not law, at work when it comes to Israel. And people like you are guilty of perpetrating a lot of inconsistent and illogical BS that the various power brokers formulate. I don’t know whether you are just unsuspecting unthinking stooges or whether you have your own biased vested interests and agendas. But what you spread does not stand up to close scrutiny by any thinking person, JB.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “this was Israeli OCCUPIED territory, and Israel had no authority under international law to unilaterally declare that: It’s now mine! Mine! All mine!”

            By the same token, the Palestinian Arabs have no right to unilaterally claim that all the land, including pre 1967 Israel, or even hust the WB is theirs.

            Like I said, the borders of Israel and a prospective Arab state in Palestine have not been defined. So you and your friends, JB, can jump up and down all day long, as much as you like, but at the end, it all translates to what I have been trying to tell you all along. We are dealing here with disputed lands. Not occupied lands.

            But before you get your knickers in a knot, JB, let me reiterate what I said earlier. Since all the Arabs of the WB are under Israel’s control and since they are not Israeli citizens, those people, as a people are under occupation. They are destined to be given their own sovereign country in borders which are yet to be determined in negotiations. The same goes for Israel’s borders which are yet to be determined.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            And …

            Thank you JB, you just confirmed what I have been saying all along. The borders of Israel and the prospective Palestinian Arab state were never defined.

            But you still did not answer my question:

            How come the non Arab world was not urging Israel to give up all the land that they won through war in 1948? The Arab world and their faithful allies were screaming for it before 1967 but most of the rest of the world did not back up their demand. Yet, because the politics shifted, there is a claim that Israel has to relinquish ALL territories it won in 1967. Even territories that were previously populated by Jews (like Gush Etzion and East Jerusalem) but from which Jews were ethnically cleansed by Arabs in 1948 and which Israel won back in 1967.

            I tell you JB there is a lot of politics, NOT ‘international law’, at work when it comes to Israel. And people like you are guilty of perpetrating a lot of inconsistent and illogical BS that the various power brokers formulate. I don’t know whether you are just unsuspecting unthinking stooges or whether you have your own biased vested interests and agendas. But what you spread does not stand up to close scrutiny by any thinking person, JB.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik: “By the same token, the Palestinian Arabs have no right to unilaterally claim that all the land, including pre 1967 Israel, or even hust the WB is theirs.”

            Quite untrue, and for two Very Good Reasons.

            1) They aren’t holding ANY territory in a belligerent occupation, ergo, the prohibition on “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” does not apply to them.

            2) They aren’t UNILATERALLY lodging a claim to any of the territory allocated to the “Arab state” by the Partition Plan of 1947.

            Certainly it is no more UNILATERAL than when Ben Gurion stood up and read out the Israel Declaration of Independence which, inter alia, claimed all the territory that had been allocated to the “Jewish state” for his newly-minted “state of Israel”.

            a) What was allocated to the “Jewish state” is Israel’s, and
            b) What was allocated to the “Arab state” is Palestine’s, and
            c) There is nothing the slightest bit unilateral in either.

            After all, you **have** read the Israel Declaration of Independence, haven’t you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “1) They aren’t holding ANY territory in a belligerent occupation, ergo, the prohibition on “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” does not apply to them.”

            I’ll take this one first JB old boy because this is just hilarious … LOL, LOL and more LOL.

            Let me paraphrase your claim:

            Before 1967, the Jews of Palestine had no right to claim any of the land because they acquired the land in a WAR in which the Palestinian Arabs and their allies attacked them.

            The Palestinian Arabs on the other hand had the right to claim ALL of Palestine because they lost the WAR that they started.

            In other words, the Palis conceived a devilishly clever tactic. They figured out that to get to claim ALL the land, all they would have to do, is to attack them (rotten) Jews and LOSE the war. International law (according to our JB here) would then ensure that only they and NOT them (bloody) Jews would have a legitimate claim to the land because the Jews acquired the territory through war. Are you for real JB????

            Hey JB, your claims are getting hilariouser and hilariouser (pardon my bad english) but you are just too funny JB …

            More to follow. From being mildly annoying, you are now beginning to amuse me JB.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Niiice straw man, dude. You put it up all by yourself, did you?

            You originally asked this:
            Q: “Yet you don’t make the same claim about the land that Israel acquired in the 1948 war?”

            I pointed out (correctly) that the issue of all the territory that Israel acquired IN THE 1948 WAR became a moot point in 1993.

            You then asked this follow-up
            Q: “And your answer is a silly answer. Silly because the question that it begs is what about before 1993?”

            I answered (again, correctly) that prior to that 1993 concession all the territory that Israel ACQUIRED IN THE 1948 WAR was “Israeli occupied territory”.

            Now you come up with this straw man nonsense:
            Tzutzik: “Before 1967, the Jews of Palestine had no right to claim any of the land because they acquired the land in a WAR in which the Palestinian Arabs and their allies attacked them.”

            No, I didn’t say that.

            I said something quite different i.e. that Israel had EVERY RIGHT to claim ALL THE TERRITORY that had been allocated to the “Jewish state” in the Partition Plan.

            That’s their territory, and it still is.

            But Israel has NO RIGHT to claim any territory that lay OUTSIDE that territory that had been allocated to that “Jewish state”.

            My ludicrous friend also erected this straw man:
            Tzutzik: “The Palestinian Arabs on the other hand had the right to claim ALL of Palestine because they lost the WAR that they started.”

            Nooooo, I never said that.

            I said what I said, which is this: the state of Israel has EVERY RIGHT to claim all of the territory that had been allocated to the “Jewish state”, and the state of Palestine has EVERY RIGHT to claim all of the territory that had been allocated to the “Arab state”.

            Where Tzutzik goes waaaaay off the rails is easy to see: he appears to want to equate the phrase “the land that Israel acquired in the 1948 war” with ALL the territory that Israel had under its control at the time of the Armistice.

            That is incorrect i.e. the only territory that Israel “acquired in the 1948 war” is the territory that lay **outside** the territory that had been allocated to the “Jewish state” in the Partition Plan.

            Everything that lay **inside** the territory allocated to the “Jewish state” wasn’t “acquired by Israel in the 1948 war”, precisely because it acquired that territory via the process of “state succession”.

            After all, that’s all that the Partition Plan was i.e. a plan for “state succession” wherein the Mandate for Palestine would be “succeeded” by two “successor states”, one “Jewish” and the other “Arab”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “That’s their territory, and it still is.

            But Israel has NO RIGHT to claim any territory that lay OUTSIDE that territory that had been allocated to that “Jewish state”.

            Ok, that’s a little bit better JB, you really didn’t make yourself clear though.

            But this then brings me back to my original question of inconsistency. Here is a quote of my original question again (slightly modified) which you still did not answer:

            “And your answer is a silly answer. Silly because the question that it begs is what about before 1993?

            Before 1993, the Arabs conceded nothing. In fact, before 1967, Israel did not even control the WB. It only controlled the land that it conquered in the 1948 war.

            Yet no one, other than the Arabs and their faithful allies, demanded that Israel should give up the EXTRA lands that it acquired in the 1948 war.

            So JB, my friend, my question still stands. Can you answer it? What was so different between 1948 and after 1967? Why are the rules supposed to be different? My opinion is the answer is given with ONE WORD: – POLITICS. Here I’ll spell it for you: P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S.”

            NOTE
            ———
            I inserted the word “EXTRA” referring to the bits of extra lands that Israel acquired in it’s defensive war over and the land allocated to it by UN GA Resolution 181.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “2) They aren’t UNILATERALLY lodging a claim to any of the territory allocated to the “Arab state” by the Partition Plan of 1947”

            You mean UN General Assembly Resolution 181? The one that the Palestinian Arabs rejected? You do know that such a resolution is non binding, don’t you JB? You do know that the UN General Assembly has no power to issue mandatory resolutions. You don’t know? Never mind JB, the Arabs did know this fact and that’s why they emphatically rejected that resolution back in 1947 and launched a war of aggression against the Jews of Palestine in 1948.

            Having rejected it, they can’t now come back and cry foul about it. They have to wear the consequences of their ill judged attempt to try to rob the Jews of Palestine of their share of the land which UN resolution 181 RECOMMENDED and which as you say Ben Gurion was prepared to accept but which after the Arab aggression of 1948, Israel too is no longer bound by.

            Go on JB, keep on arguing about it and tangle yourself in knots. I just know you will, and I am now looking forward to it with amusement …

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Oh dear, so much ignorance in one post….

            Tzutzik: “You mean UN General Assembly Resolution 181?”

            Yes, that one.

            Tzutsik: “The one that the Palestinian Arabs rejected?”

            Since it wasn’t an “offer” then your pointless point of order makes no difference.

            After all, if a plan is *imposed* *upon* *them* then neither their “acceptance” or “rejection” matters one little bit.

            Tzutzik: “You do know that such a resolution is non binding, don’t you JB?”

            Ahem.

            You might want to consider this fact: a decision made by the Mandatory Power is very, very binding indeed.

            And you *have* read the text of UNGA Res 181, haven’t you?

            Note the very first line: “The General Assembly, Having met in special session at the request of the mandatory Power”……

            At. The. Request. Of. The. Mandatory. Power.

            There is no question – none at all – that Mandatory Power can decide to partition a mandated territory into two successor states (witness Syria/Lebanon, Iraq/Kuwait, and Palestine/Transjordan).

            Such a decision **by** the Mandatory is very binding indeed.

            But note this: there is a legal barrier that a Mandatory Power must first leap, and it is the need to get the “consent of the League of Nations” (Article 27 of Mandate, if you want to look it up).

            Which by 1946 meant that the Mandatory Power had to obtain the “consent of the UNGA”.

            Get it now?

            No, of course you don’t. Here, let me explain….

            What UNGA Res 181 amounts to is this: the Mandatory wanted to Partition its Mandate into an “Arab state” and a “Jewish state”, and to make that a BINDING decision it needed the “consent of the UNGA”.

            And the UNGA gave its consent, by a vote of 33-13.

            You are simply looking in the wrong place for the source of the authority to make that Partition Plan legally binding; that authority resided with the MANDATORY, and the only role that the UNGA had was to tick that off with a quick “OK, we consent to your plan”.

            Honestly, do you know ANYTHING?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Honestly, do you know ANYTHING?”

            There you go again showing YOUR ignorance JB.

            Yes, I know that UNGA resolution 181 was non binding. Even the Arabs have been telling us that for years. And you can go check the text of the resolution, it is full of the words “Recommend” and “Recommendation” go check it out, don’t be lazy.

            “You are simply looking in the wrong place for the source of the authority to make that Partition Plan legally binding; that authority resided with the MANDATORY, and the only role that the UNGA had was to tick that off with a quick “OK, we consent to your plan”.”

            OK then JB, their role was to tick only? Tick exactly what? The MANDATE did not define the borders of the two states. UNGA Resolution 181 did. And as I said, it was a non binding recommendation.

            Last but not least, JB, let us pretend, I say just pretend, that the Resolution was binding, then are you saying that the Palestinian Arabs were non law abiding? Ahhhh shucks … I thought guys like you only accuse Israel/Jews of being non law abiding.

            Are you feeling ok JB? Maybe you are coming down with a virus, you don’t seem to be yourself. LOL

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Oh and JB, you skipped answering my previous post. Was it just an oversight? Or is the answer is eluding you?

            Here, I will quote it again:

            “That’s their territory, and it still is.

            But Israel has NO RIGHT to claim any territory that lay OUTSIDE that territory that had been allocated to that “Jewish state”.

            Ok, that’s a little bit better JB, you really didn’t make yourself clear though.

            But this then brings me back to my original question of inconsistency. Here is a quote of my original question again (slightly modified) which you still did not answer:

            “And your answer is a silly answer. Silly because the question that it begs is what about before 1993?

            Before 1993, the Arabs conceded nothing. In fact, before 1967, Israel did not even control the WB. It only controlled the land that it conquered in the 1948 war.

            Yet no one, other than the Arabs and their faithful allies, demanded that Israel should give up the EXTRA lands that it acquired in the 1948 war.

            So JB, my friend, my question still stands. Can you answer it? What was so different between 1948 and after 1967? Why are the rules supposed to be different? My opinion is the answer is given with ONE WORD: – POLITICS. Here I’ll spell it for you: P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S.”

            NOTE
            ———
            I inserted the word “EXTRA” referring to the bits of extra lands that Israel acquired in it’s defensive war over and the land allocated to it by UN GA Resolution 181.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Well, gosh, that’s an impressive bit of goal-post-moving.

            Let’s see how your lamentable argument has, ahem, morphed…

            The original post was this:
            Tzutzik: “I thought that laws are meant to be consistent.”

            Note: he is talking about the consistent application of THE LAW.

            But now we are witness to this airy-fairy-ness…

            Tzutzik: “But this then brings me back to my original question of inconsistency”

            What inconsistency are you now talking about, sunshine?

            The LAW is perfectly clear, and I have been perfectly consistent in applying it.

            The Partition Plan allocated *this* territory to *you*, and it also allocated *that* territory to *them*.

            War-waging ALONE can not change the legal status of either *this* or *that* territory.

            So Israel’s seizure of additional territory in 1949 did not give Israel any legal claim to that territory (and, again, the Armistice Agreement spells that out).

            And (again, one more time) Israel’s seizure of Yet More Territory in 1967 also did not give Israel any legal claim to that territory either.

            But there **is** a difference in those two land seizures, but (and, please, do pay attention here) it doesn’t come from anything Israel has done or declared.

            It came from a commitment from the PLO in 1993 that it would agree to a peace treaty that involved it ceding all the territory seized by Israel between 1948-49 in exchange for a Palestinian state in all the territory seized by Israel in 1967.

            That’s perfectly LEGAL, and that’s perfectly CONSISTENT with what int’l law says regarding the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”.

            And, again, we are supposed to be arguing about the consistent application of the LAW, not about the inconsistent application of P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S.

            Well, we were, until Mr Moveable decided to move the goalposts one more time.

            Again.

            Indeed, it appears to be his one and only party trick….

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            But JB you still haven’t answered my question. You are just ducking and weaving.

            JB: “So Israel’s seizure of additional territory in 1949 did not give Israel any legal claim to that territory (and, again, the Armistice Agreement spells that out).”

            Fine then. So how come the international community was not jumping up and down about the “additional” land that Israel “occupied” between 1949 and 1967?

            There was not a pip out of the UN about it. Nil, zip, nada, zero. Even the anti-Israel Soviets didn’t jump up and down about Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian Arab lands between 1949 and 1967. How come, JB?

            And please don’t bring up your 1993 PLO Concession of the land, because that is just a red herring. Unless of course you are gonna claim 1993 was before the years between 1949 – 1967? Nah, surely not, even you would be that dense, would you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik:”Fine then. So how come the international community was not jumping up and down about the “additional” land that Israel “occupied” between 1949 and 1967?”

            Ahem.

            There was an Armistice Agreement in place, Tzutzik, or didn’t anyone tell you that?

            Tzutzik: “There was not a pip out of the UN about it. Nil, zip, nada, zero. Even the anti-Israel Soviets didn’t jump up and down about Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian Arab lands between 1949 and 1967. How come, JB?”

            Well, gosh, there was that Armistice Agreement ‘n’ all, so there was no point jumping up and down over that occupation.

            I thought I had already mentioned that……

            I am uncertain what you were expecting the “international community” to do, seeing as how that Israeli occupation was **agreed** **to** by all the parties who had signed that Armistice Agreement.

            But that’s “occupation”, not “sovereignty”, and int’l law is very, very clear on the distinction between the two.

            As in: you can occupy territory (that’s not illegal per se), but the act of occupying a territory does *not* grant you ownership of that territory.

            Honestly, what’s your argument?

            That there is some great legal import to be placed on that fact that the USSR didn’t go to war with Israel over the latter’s insistence that it had annexed the territory that it had seized between 1948-49?

            Are you suggesting that there is something profound in the fact that the UN didn’t raise an army and march on Tel Aviv when the Israelis declared that I Don’t Care What We Agreed To In The Armistice We Own All This Territory Now.

            Is that your argument?

            If it is then it’s not much of an argument.

            Indeed, it’s rather akin to suggesting that because nobody stopped the USA from invading Iraq in 2003 then – of course! – that act of omission meant that the USA could “legally” annex Iraq as the newest State Of The Union.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Well, gosh, there was that Armistice Agreement ‘n’ all, so there was no point jumping up and down over that occupation.”

            Well, gosh, there was UN Security council Resolution 242 after 1967. So doesn’t it strike you as odd that since 1967, Israel has been constantly being admonished for building “settlements” on occupied territories but between 1948 and 1967 no one admonished Israel for building in areas in which you claim to have been occupied territories (lands beyond the partition borders)?

            I mean, the contrast is remarkable, startling even, JB old boy. Doesn’t it tell you that you are wrong in your claims, JB? Could it actually be possible that you are simply wrong, JB old boy?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            JB:”Well gosh …”

            Yea and golly gosh to you too JB.

            I sympathise with your reluctance to answer my question in my previous post. Obviously, you are of the opinion that between 1949 and 1967 your comrades in the Soviet Union were shrinking violets but after 1967 they lost their shyness and made up for lost time.

            But let me ask you another question now, I hope you don’t mind?

            In your first post here you accused Israel of committing a war crime because Israel did not submit to the PA’s terms of surrender and continued their occupation.

            You also claimed (wrongly) that the 1948 UN partition of Palestine was a binding act on both parties. But let’s just pretend that you are right.

            So, would you then also be prepared to accuse the Palestinian Arabs of committing a war crime because they rejected the partition and started a war against the Jews of Palestine who DID accept the partition?

            Eh, JB, what do I have to give you to get you to admit that? Would a triple er gosh, do you? Here it is:

            er gosh … er gosh …. er gosh. There I said it JB. Your turn …

            Reply to Comment
    8. Ron Temis

      So who in the EU funds +972 and what is the goal of that funding? It’s the same department and people that fund BDS against us.

      Oh, those poor Europeans, we Israelis cause them so many problems, why their streets fill with demonstrators because if us,

      Reply to Comment
    9. “I also wonder whether declaring that we are now ‘beyond occupation’ might play into the hands of those in the Israeli and American right who outright deny the reality on the ground. In some venues even the term occupation is controversial, so should we be the ones abandoning it? I wonder what readers think.”

      Silence is not outright denial of reality; it is disdain for reality; that is, it just doesn’t matter to them, all is the fault of those crying redress. If only they made peace olive trees would still be standing. If only they made peace the aquifer would cease to be (further) allocated to our ends. If only they made peace the area under settlement would finally stop growing. Etc. Blame is focused on those without power because their purported leaders will not act appropriately. There is no sense of personal wrong, only group battle and group culpability. I suspect there are instances of those on the national right saying “that was wrong and we will, in the particular instance, reverse it,” but I know of none. The High Court is a different matter and has, with more or less success, attempted to order redress at times.

      As to use of “occupation,” recall what happened to Jimmy Carter when he used “apartheid.” “Occupation” has the advantage of highlighting the unfair allocation of indigenous resources, and unfair treatment of individuals, since ownership is still biased toward prior residents through the word. “Apartheid” is a policy which assumes State jurisdiction or ownership, just an unfair use of such. Apartheid alone can actually insulate the State from outside criticism, as the matter reduces to internal policy; the only reason for fighting off the word is its South African genesis. “Occupation yielding functional apartheid” recovers a sense of, if not dislegitimate, at least not fully legitimate acts. But with 500,000+ Israelis, some now third generation, on “occupied” land, makes “occupied” somewhat of a misnomer.

      Greater Israel has come, and I think documenting the abuses endured by individuals in their daily lives, not strategic “Palestinian” demands, can only lead to change. Repeatedly, strategic talk whiteouts actual individual events. Keeping discourse at the corporate Israel/Palestine level enables the settlements and skewed resource allocation to grow. Corporate strategic talk sounds as if it places solution and redress in our hands, but the creeping status quo is thereby ever allowed to advance. We are duped, a con to divert from real life action.

      So my answer to the query of the post is that it would be verbally more productive to adhere to “occupation,” but illusory so. Only actual events, actual cases will have any hope of inducing change. And that is one major reason why the national right’s reaction to the High Court is ambivalent. Only that institution may cause a case history to enable change.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Tzutzik

      “There is no sense of personal wrong, only group battle and group culpability.”

      So what is your answer Greg? The Palestinian Arabs are tribal. They always were. You are ok with that, but not if Israelis are tribal too? (well us rightist ones anyway).

      PS
      By the way, name one war in history between ANY two peoples where BOTH sides were not tribal.

      If you do, I will show you the losing side. The non tribal one. But I doubt that there ever was such a war. You guys only expect it from Israel.

      Reply to Comment
      • bob wisby

        What about the Zulu wars? The British at that time can hardly be described as tribal though the fuzzie-wuzzies certainly were. And who got their behind kicked there? We had the machine gun, of course, which perhaps made things a little unfair.

        Reply to Comment
        • Joel

          Actually, the Zulus bested the British in battle once or twice.

          Actually, fuzzy wuzzies were Sudanese, not from South Africa.

          Actually, the Zulu tribe warred against other indigenous tribes.

          Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          What? You the Brits were not tribal?

          Not much huh? Next thing you are going to claim that there were British volunteers fighting on the side of the Zulus for the Zulus? I wouldn’t put anything past a troll like you.

          PS
          But at least you revealed your nationality. You are a Brit. Information filed for later use, assuming you will keep trolling this site.

          Reply to Comment
          • bob wisby

            “You are a Brit. Information filed for later use, assuming you will keep trolling this site.”

            Tzutzik, that sounds rather sinister, reminiscent of the soviet NKVD. Surely you’re not advocating some sort of thought police?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Ohhh Bob, don’t be like that. Next thing you are going to say that I am scaring you? Surely you are not scared of Mossad. You are too small a fry to worry about.

            Maybe if you would have less of a fat head, you wouldn’t be worried because you’d realise how insignificant you are.

            But alas, your fat head will be your down-fall yet. Poor Bob 🙂

            Reply to Comment
      • Wars end. Are your Arab Israeli citizens tribal? Shall they also be denied personal redress because wars never end, and all sides are tribal?

        Greater Israel is here, as you want. If you want to prevent future violence, the bantu area of the PA must develop. Contractual joint partnerships with Israelis, with neutral economic courts, could, I think, make a progress.

        As to the claim that, e.g., the abuses Yesh Din documents on the West Bank are necessary war measures–well, who is doing all the fighting?

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          “Wars end. Are your Arab Israeli citizens tribal? Shall they also be denied personal redress because wars never end, and all sides are tribal?”

          As a matter of fact they are, Greg. And the war has NOT ended yet. So stop expecting us alone to act as if the war ended and as if the Arabs, yes many Israeli Arabs too are not acting in tribal fashion.

          A bit of perspective and less bias on this site would get us too to talk more reasonably. But if you guys insist on dealing with this topic in a one sided way, people like me too will be one sided too. We will show you the perspective of the other side. Israel’s side and the perspective of Israelis …

          Reply to Comment
          • If your Arab citizens are citizens, then progress can be made. That was my point. If you want the war to end in the WB, then treat residents as if it were over or ending, so not import, e.g., Gaza actions as somehow representative of West Bank residents asking for redress. There is nothing in Israeli security which requires the actions Yesh Din documents. In that sense the war can be over, there, in those moments.

            You asked me for an answer. This is it. It’s not a global answer. But I can say that one of the purposes of law is to short circuit tribal attitudes, on all sides, in the case at hand. The case at hand.

            I really don’t think the people of the cases Yesh Din hereon documents are in a war against you. They are in a life struggle. Will there be risk in moving toward a case law approach? Yes. Are there gains? Long term, I think enormous.

            Now let me do to you what you did to me: instead of thinking you know all about my end goals and biases, consider the reasons may have been years in formulation, off and on, and are devoted to the idea that both sides, quite locally, in the WB, can live. No global solution, equity of the case, possible because of overwhelming Israeli power on the ground.

            Or I can just be bashed aside in righteous understanding, as has increasingly become the case herein.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “If you want the war to end in the WB, then treat residents as if it were over or ending”

            Sorry Greg, it is very difficult to pretend that the war is over if Palestinian teenagers exterminate an entire family in the middle on the night as they did to the Fogel family. Or if they throw stones which cause a car with an Israeli number plate to crash, causing grave injuries to a Jewish baby inside the car, rendering her brain dead. I could go on, Greg but I won’t.

            Such incidents happen regularly. In the meanwhile, Abbas insists that such terrorists must be released as a price for him agreeing to pretend to have peace negotiations with Israel. And when Israel stupidly complies with such demands, Abbas treats the released terrorists as heroes.

            Very hard to pretend under the circumstances, that peace has arrived.

            PS
            To make matters worse, people in sites like these pretend that everything is Israel’s fault. That just makes people like me cynical and equally insensitive to Pali grievances. And Greg, what’s the bet that there will be at least one poster who will now brings up Israeli actions which caused the deaths of innocent Palestinians. Do you think that’s the way to argue the Palis case? I for one doubt it. I know my reaction to that, I will remind you guys that everything is part of a cause and effect cycle.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >If you want the war to end in the WB, then treat residents as if it were over or ending.

            Since the WB residents had started the war nearly 100 years ago and show no signs of willingness to end it, there is no reason why a sane person would treat WB as if its were peaceful.

            Reply to Comment
    11. As usual, a wonderful analysys

      Reply to Comment
      • bob wisby

        Thanks, Dino:)

        Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          “Thanks, Dino:)”

          Hey, Busby, are you sure he was talking to you? Or is it just your oversized ego taking credit?

          Reply to Comment
          • bob wisby

            Tzutzik, this isn’t the place for petty jealousies and back-biting. If Dino wishes to congratulate someone on a fine piece of analysis, that’s his business, not anyone else’s. Please stop trying to disrupt the elegant flow of other peoples’ discourse.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            ” Please stop trying to disrupt the elegant flow of other peoples’ discourse.”

            LOL, Bob. Yes, you have a fat head. A very fat one. In fact it dwarfs your body.

            I suggest you should get a prop for your head. Otherwise if might fall off your skinny little neck.

            Poor Bob. I am actually beginning to feel sorry for you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Now are you going to answer my question JB?

            If what the Israeli HC/SC saiy contradicts what I say, how come the settlements have not been dismantled?

            They have teeth as was proven by forcing Israel to reroute the fence. So why didn’t they force the government to dismantle the settlements?

            Why are you avoiding my question JB?

            Reply to Comment
    12. bob wisby

      I think one of the problems in discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict with Israelis, is that they are at such a massive disadvantage. They have been bought up on a lot of very dangerous stories, and this has had the effect of crippling their faculty for self-criticism, which has led to the situation where a nuclear armed state, sincerely believes that in truth, the people in whose name they fight, which has a history extending back thousands of years, have a unique, morally unblemished history. While all other nations, (perhaps excepting N.Korea) openly acknowledge their very human, and sometimes inhuman failings, this state say’s, “No, we’re not like you people. We’re blameless. We’re Saints. If we do have any fault, it’s that we’re a little neurotic, maybe a bit nebbish”. And they really believe that. They’re not pretending, or hiding anything. They can’t see themselves as they are seen, which is a thing most of us cannot do either. It’s a very difficult thing to do. And so they are locked in a fight with all mankind, over whose view is correct: Theirs, which claims that among mankind’s many variants, there is one special, more important, more deserving people, a people who shall dwell alone. Or the other view, which say’s, “Humans are all the same, with regional variations. All of us are just human, with all that this entails.” I, bob wisby, don’t know (as I’m not God), if the first or second position is right. One of them must be.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        ” the people in whose name they fight, which has a history extending back thousands of years, have a unique, morally unblemished history.”

        Show me where do we claim that?

        To the contrary, let me go on the record and say that we ARE human and we too are blemished like all other human beings.

        But we are no worse than anyone else and better than many.

        We are arguing against your kind, yes you personally, Busby … Wisby …. Bob, or whatever your name is. We are arguing because you are trying to make ous out to be WORSE than anyone else. You repeat old Nazi blood libels about Jews using the blood of gentile children in our Matzot, spreading the black plague and other modern variation of the above medieval blood libels. You claim that we Jews collectively conspire against the Goyim. That is what we deny, Busby, your Nazi tropes.

        Reply to Comment
        • bob wisby

          “You repeat old Nazi blood libels about Jews using the blood of gentile children in our Matzot, spreading the black plague”

          Show me where I’ve mentioned any of this nonsense.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Show me where I’ve mentioned any of this nonsense.”

            You have Bob and you know you have.

            I said the modern version of medieval blood libels. You know exactly what you said and where you said it but I am not repeating them to you. I am not interested in wanking you off. I am sure that if I would repeat your own words, it would give you sexual pleasure. And I am not interested in giving you such satisfaction. I am sure you are perfectly proficient in helping yourself. At least when your mother is not around, right Bob?

            Go look for it yourself at the beginning of this very thread. And it isn’t the only place where you said it.

            Reply to Comment
          • bob wisby

            Are you a professional troll, Tzutzik, or do you just do it as a hobby? The thing is, this site is populated by a lot of folk who don’t use foul language as a rule, nor throw filthy insults at other posters. In this regard, you really do stand out here, like a sore thumb. Your level of trolling would be more appropriate to Ynet’s comments pages. You could swap ping-pong insults with all those people until the cows come home. Just a thought.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Are you a professional troll, Tzutzik, or do you just do it as a hobby?”

            So said the pot to the kettle.

            How could I possibly hope to compete with you Bob? Yes I called YOU names and yes I was rude to YOU, an individual. But you? Your lies just roll off your tongue shamelessly, against an entire people. My people. Yes, lies and libels. And you are upset at me? Give me a break. At least be man enough to take a little bit of what you dish out.

            Reply to Comment
    13. Tom Mitchell

      Europe is biased in favor of the Palestinians–but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. is biased in favor of Israel. By using the British-Irish co-sponsorship of the Northern Ireland peace process as a model, Washington could bring Brussels in as an equal partner in the peace process and the EU and Washington could together decide the parameters of a peace process and the identity of a mediator. This would eliminate bias, eliminate Palestinian excuses, and make it much easier to make progress.

      Reply to Comment
    14. directrob

      Israel is as occupier responsible for the well being of Palestinians, so of course European support for Palestinians is support for Israel.

      The conclusion of Menachem Klein’s text is typical. Not justice, human rights and the rule of law are important but only the saving of the Jewish state. It is the spirit of the 19th century, states are more important than people.

      Reply to Comment
    15. David T.

      The fact, that Israel’s occupation is not temporary doesn’t make it disappear. It makes it illegal.

      And Israel is only a democracy for those it doesn’t keep expelled and denationalized to prevent them participating in democracy. It keep’s them segregated to maintain a regime (politically) dominated by Jews. And this alone amounts to the Crime of Apartheid as defined in international law.

      Reply to Comment
    16. Click here to load previous comments