Israel's Tragedy Foretold: The Illegality of West Bank Settlements was Known to Israeli Leaders in 1967

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Oct 16, 2010 9:53 PM GMT
    " … In early September 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was considering granting the first approval for settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights, conquered three months earlier in the Six-Day War. …

    "The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked "Top Secret," Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

    " … Mr. Meron explained that the Convention — to which Israel was a signatory — forbade an occupying power from moving part of its population to occupied territory. The Golan, taken from Syria, was "undoubtedly 'occupied territory,' " he wrote.

    "Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

    "But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

    "There is a subtext here. In treating the West Bank as occupied, Israel may simply have been recognizing legal reality. But doing so had practical import: if the land was occupied, the Arabs who lived there did not have to be integrated into the Israeli polity — in contrast to Arabs within Israel, who were citizens.

    " … In effect, the Meron memo told Eshkol: you cannot have it both ways. If the West Bank was "occupied" for the Arab population, then neither international law nor Israel's democratic norms permitted settling Jews there."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2010 11:39 PM GMT
    God, not another fucking Palestinian thread.

    Oh but of course neighboring Muslim countries invading Israel in 1967 which lead to the West Bank capture obviously wasn't illegal. No no, that was a peace movement.

    Meanwhile, in Tibet, a country that actually deserves to be autonomous:

    CHINA_TIBET_Monk_wounded.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2010 1:56 AM GMT
    sxydrkhair> Get educated, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon aren't Muslim countries.

    It's always funny to see the most ignorant people around tell others to "get educated."

    The above countries are all members of the OIC:
    http://www.oic-oci.org/member_states.asp

    Just what is the Organization of the Islamic Conference?

    http://www.oic-oci.org/page_detail.asp?p_id=52
    || The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world....

    Demographics:
    Egypt: 90% Muslim
    Jordan: 94% Muslim
    Lebanon: 60% Muslim
    Syria: 90% Muslim

    Egypt, Jordan and Syria base parts of their legal system on Islamic law.


    JAKEBENSON> God, not another fucking Palestinian thread.

    Good catch, and as always the point isn't pro-Palestinian-Arab as much as it is an expression of anti-Israel animus.

    There's no shortage of existing topics in which to discuss this subject, but that's not the point, the yellow journalism headline is the point of the spam propagandists.

    See:

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    - and Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491

    Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people.
    (Judaism is a religion, Jews are an ethnic group)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/494893

    Arabs are not indigenous to Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    Jerusalem
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/887747

    1947-1948: Arabs reject compromise and attack Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691

    Jaffa: 94% fled before entry of Israeli forces; 6% became Israeli citizens
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691#54845_1035438_name

    Critical Day - September 30th - Day Of Decision From Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1157466

    In search of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: UNSCR 242, Oslo and Camp David/Taba
    (Or: I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843

    Pallywood: fake news revealed
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/897708

    Free Gaza from what truly afflicts it: Hamas
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/973888

    Countries that support gays or kill them
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/984797

    Gay Palestinians
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1061322

    Gay Arabs and Jews
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1188955
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2010 2:07 AM GMT
    Am I missing something here? Were there words or a link once in the body of the original post? Or is it all said in the thread title?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 12:54 AM GMT
    Heartrobb saidAm I missing something here? Were there words or a link once in the body of the original post? Or is it all said in the thread title?

    Given that tokugawa hasn't logged in since the 30th, it appears that pouncer (posting on the 31st) found the null body or thread title to be "very interesting" and thus revived a spam propaganda topic that virtually no one had bothered to look at in 15 days. (Which he now follows up with vapid personal attacks.)
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 04, 2010 7:08 AM GMT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html?_r=1

    Israel's Tragedy Foretold
    By GERSHOM GORENBERG, The New York Times
    Published: March 10, 2006
    Jerusalem

    "... In early September 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was considering granting the first approval for settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights ...

    "The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked "Top Secret," Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

    [My original post in this thread has mysteriously disappeared. Much like my photo, which was removed without my knowledge or consent. All subsequent attempts to upload a photo have failed.]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 8:01 AM GMT
    Continuing from your source:

    || Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

    || But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

    So let's think about this (for those who have that capability):

    The first reason is diplomatic, political, not legal.

    The second reason is allegedly legal, but it misses the point. The Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict. That the Israeli military said so during the war has absolutely no impact on the legal disposition of the territory after the war.

    All of this is already discussed in several other topics so it is right to question why tokugawa started a new topc let alone why pouncer, absent any content, would "bump" a null topic 2 weeks later (other than to spam the subject).
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 04, 2010 8:13 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said ... neighboring Muslim countries invading Israel in 1967 which lead to the West Bank capture obviously wasn't illegal. ...


    Actually, Israel invaded its neighbors in 1967, beginning with the very successful attack on the Egyptian Air Force.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 04, 2010 8:25 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 said ... So let's think about this (for those who have that capability):


    c4 previously wrote, "As usual, unable to address the topic or say anything intelligent... the personal attacks come flying."

    c4 fails to refute the New York Times article's main point, that Israel knowingly violated international law when it decided to build settlements in the occupied territories:


    "... In early September 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was considering granting the first approval for settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights ...

    "The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked "Top Secret," Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

    source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html?_r=1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 8:35 AM GMT
    tokugawa said
    JAKEBENSON said ... neighboring Muslim countries invading Israel in 1967 which lead to the West Bank capture obviously wasn't illegal. ...


    Actually, Israel invaded its neighbors in 1967, beginning with the very successful attack on the Egyptian Air Force.


    That's not what started the war. That was just the first blow of the war. I don't expect you to get your facts straight though. There's no use in teaching a cat English.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 8:37 AM GMT
    Continuing from tokugawa's source:

    || Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

    || But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

    So let's think about this:

    The first reason is diplomatic, political, not legal.

    The second reason is allegedly legal, but it misses the point. The Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict. That the Israeli military said so during the war has absolutely no impact on the legal disposition of the territory after the war.

    All of this is already discussed in several other topics so it is right to question why tokugawa started a new topc let alone why pouncer, absent any content, would "bump" a null topic 2 weeks later (other than to spam the subject).
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 04, 2010 8:47 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 said ... the point isn't pro-Palestinian-Arab as much as it is an expression of anti-Israel animus.


    So, pointing out Israeli violations of International Law is actually "an expression of anti-Israel animus."

    c4's creed:

    1) Black is white,
    2) Up is down,
    3) People who support International law are "anti-Israel."













    ---

    c4 likes to spam:


    Caesarea4 said "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    - and Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491


    spam, spam, spam, lovely spam

    Caesarea4 said Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people.
    (Judaism is a religion, Jews are an ethnic group)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/494893


    Isn't this rather off-topic?

    Caesarea4 said Arabs are not indigenous to Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648


    spam, spam, spam, wonderful spam

    Caesarea4 said Jerusalem
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/887747


    More off-topic spam

    Caesarea4 said 1947-1948: Arabs reject compromise and attack Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691


    I'll have spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, and spam

    Caesarea4 said Jaffa: 94% fled before entry of Israeli forces; 6% became Israeli citizens
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691#54845_1035438_name


    Another c4 deception: Israel did not exist when Jaffa fell. FAIL!

    Caesarea4 said Critical Day - September 30th - Day Of Decision From Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1157466


    Baked beans are off.

    Caesarea4 said In search of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: UNSCR 242, Oslo and Camp David/Taba
    (Or: I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843


    Can I have Spam instead of baked beans?

    Caesarea4 said Pallywood: fake news revealed
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/897708


    You mean you want spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam?

    Caesarea4 said Free Gaza from what truly afflicts it: Hamas
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/973888


    Lovely spam, wonderful spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam!

    Caesarea4 said Countries that support gays or kill them
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/984797


    More of c4's off-topic spam!

    Caesarea4 said Gay Palestinians
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1061322


    Isn't c4 the poster who often complains about off topic posts?

    Caesarea4 said Gay Arabs and Jews
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1188955


    More of c4's off-topic spam!
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 04, 2010 8:53 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidContinuing from tokugawa's source: ...


    We heard you the first time, c4.

    Repeating a post verbatim is SPAM.

    Repeating a deceptive post verbatim is EVIL SPAM.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 04, 2010 9:05 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    tokugawa said
    JAKEBENSON said ... neighboring Muslim countries invading Israel in 1967 which lead to the West Bank capture obviously wasn't illegal. ...


    Actually, Israel invaded its neighbors in 1967, beginning with the very successful attack on the Egyptian Air Force.


    That's not what started the war. ...


    Up is Down

    The country that started a war didn't start the war.

    Black is White

    The Egyptians actually bombed its own Air Force and tried to blame Israel.

    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 2:39 PM GMT
    Continuing from tokugawa's source:

    || Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

    || But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

    So let's think about this:

    The first reason is diplomatic, political, not legal.

    The second reason is allegedly legal, but it misses the point. The Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict. That the Israeli military said so during the war has absolutely no impact on the legal disposition of the territory after the war.

    tokugawa> We heard you the first time, c4.
    Repeating a post verbatim is SPAM.
    Repeating a deceptive post verbatim is EVIL SPAM.

    Then respond to it, if you can.
    What is "deceptive" about providing the rest of what your own source wrote?!
    Or is your source, not quoted selectively, "evil"?


    All of this is already discussed in several other topics so it is right to question why tokugawa started a new topc let alone why pouncer, absent any content, would "bump" a null topic 2 weeks later (other than to spam the subject, exposing their yellow journalism propaganda methodology).

    tokugawa> [Really, what can he already say? Thus the attempts to divert.]
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 08, 2010 3:30 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 said ... All of this is already discussed in several other topics ...


    Which thread contained the fact that Israeli leaders knew that building settlements in areas it occupied in 1967 was a violation of international law?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2010 3:48 PM GMT
    All of this is already discussed in several other topics so it is right to question why tokugawa started a new topic let alone why pouncer, absent any content, would "bump" a null topic 2 weeks later (other than to spam the subject, exposing their yellow journalism propaganda methodology).

    t> Which thread contained the fact....

    So every "fact" (i.e. slogan/soundbite) is going to now get posted as a topic header with a null topic?!

    The usual suspects have already started a handful of topics about "settlements", yet you had the uncontrollable need to start another with only a propaganda header?

    No wonder you can't even discuss the topic. You never intended to.
    Your project was the yellow journalism headline.


    Continuing from tokugawa's source:

    || Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

    || But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

    So let's think about this:

    The first reason is diplomatic, political, not legal.

    The second reason is allegedly legal, but it misses the point. The Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict. That the Israeli military said so during the war has absolutely no impact on the legal disposition of the territory after the war.


    tokugawa> We heard you the first time, c4.
    Repeating a post verbatim is SPAM.
    Repeating a deceptive post verbatim is EVIL SPAM.

    What is "deceptive" about providing the rest of what your own source wrote?!
    Or is your source, not quoted selectively, "evil"?


    t> [as confused as ever]


    Then respond to it, if you can.

    t> [can't, as usual]


  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 09, 2010 5:42 PM GMT
    Which thread contained the fact that Israeli leaders knew that building settlements in areas it occupied in 1967 was a violation of international law?

    c4, unable to answer the question, spams instead.

    c4's probable response: more spam.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2010 6:17 PM GMT
    All of this is already discussed in several other topics so it is right to question why tokugawa started a new topic let alone why pouncer, absent any content, would "bump" a null topic 2 weeks later (other than to spam the subject, exposing their yellow journalism propaganda methodology).

    t> Which thread contained the fact....

    So every "fact" (i.e. slogan/soundbite) is going to now get posted as a topic header with a null topic?!

    Indeed, look at the slew of yellow journalism spam propaganda topics already posted by the usual suspects:

    Settlements continue
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1190492

    Jewish settler accused of attacks on gay Israelis
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/768425

    Why cant the Israelis just stop building more settlements?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1178881

    CRITICAL DAY - September 30th - Day Of Decision From Israel - The World Is Watching
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1157466

    Not to mention other mideast topics where this subject was then under current discussion.

    Still tokugawa had the uncontrollable need to start another with only a propaganda header?
    No wonder he can't even discuss the topic. He never intended to.
    His propaganda project was the yellow journalism headline.



    Continuing from tokugawa's source:

    || Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

    || But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

    So let's think about this:

    The first reason is diplomatic, political, not legal.

    The second reason is allegedly legal, but it misses the point. The Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict. That the Israeli military said so during the war has absolutely no impact on the legal disposition of the territory after the war.


    tokugawa> We heard you the first time, c4.
    Repeating a post verbatim is SPAM.
    Repeating a deceptive post verbatim is EVIL SPAM.

    What is "deceptive" about providing the rest of what his own source wrote?!
    Or is his source, not quoted selectively, "evil"?


    t> [as confused as ever]


    Then respond to it, if you can.

    t> [silence]

    As usual, can't honestly respond and continues to spam. Not to discuss the topc but to bump the propaganda header. If he does so again I encourage people to "report spam", both for his OP and his next post.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 09, 2010 6:36 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidContinuing from tokugawa's source:

    c4 has taken a portion of the article out of context. In doing so, c4 has attempted to muddy the waters with deception and obfuscation.

    To restore context, that Israeli leaders knew, FROM THE START, that the settlements were illegal, here are key portions of the original article:

    ... The pattern is a familiar one from other countries. An endeavor once considered the epitome of patriotism leads to a quagmire. Sobriety and sadness replace euphoria. Arguments that once turned dissidents into pariahs now seem obvious: in this case, that to keep the West Bank will require Israel either to cease being democratic or to cease being a Jewish state.
    …As an Israeli who has pored over the documentary record of the settlement project, I know there is one more painful, familiar element to this story: the warnings were there from the start and were ignored, kept secret or explained away. Leaders deceived not only the country's citizens, but themselves. So begin national tragedies.
    …Prime Minister Levi Eshkol … believed that the Golan and the strip of land along the Jordan River would make Israel more defensible. He also wanted to re-establish the kibbutz of Kfar Etzion.
    …The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, … wrote unequivocally,

    "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

    …Mr. Meron explained that the Convention — to which Israel was a signatory — forbade an occupying power from moving part of its population to occupied territory. The Golan, taken from Syria, was "undoubtedly 'occupied territory,' " he wrote.

    There is a subtext here. In treating the West Bank as occupied, Israel may simply have been recognizing legal reality. But doing so had practical import: if the land was occupied, the Arabs who lived there did not have to be integrated into the Israeli polity — in contrast to Arabs within Israel, who were citizens.

    Eshkol and other Israeli leaders knew that granting citizenship to the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip would quickly turn Israel into a binational state. In effect, the Meron memo told Eshkol: you cannot have it both ways. If the West Bank was "occupied" for the Arab population, then neither international law nor Israel's democratic norms permitted settling Jews there.

    The memo did note, however, that settlement was permissible if done "by military bodies rather than civilian ones" in bases that were clearly temporary. A week after receiving the memo, Eshkol informed the cabinet that Kfar Etzion would be re-established — through a branch of the army called Nahal, which created paramilitary outposts. By the end of September, settlers arrived at Kfar Etzion. Publicly they were described as "Nahal soldiers." In fact, they were civilians. The ruse acknowledged Mr. Meron's opinion. It also showed a sadly mistaken confidence that the legal, ethical and diplomatic difficulties of settlement could somehow be avoided.

    Meanwhile, it did not take long before explicitly civilian settlements were established in land occupied in 1967. Israel's diplomats and supporters reverted to the argument Mr. Meron discounted — that the Geneva rules on occupied territory did not apply to the West Bank. Those who still use that argument are unaware of the secret Israeli legal opinion that preceded settlement.

    Yet along with international law, Israeli law was repeatedly bent or broken to allow settlement to proceed.

    Today it is clear that Israel's future as a Jewish state depends on ending its rule of the West Bank.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 09, 2010 6:44 PM GMT
    tokugawa saidWhich thread contained the fact that Israeli leaders knew that building settlements in areas it occupied in 1967 was a violation of international law?

    c4, unable to answer the question, spams instead.

    c4's probable response: more spam.

    c4 is still unable to answer the question. c4's response was, yes, more spam.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2010 7:34 PM GMT
    Continuing from tokugawa's source:

    || Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

    || But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

    So let's think about this:

    The first reason is diplomatic, political, not legal.

    The second reason is allegedly legal, but it misses the point. The Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict. That the Israeli military said so during the war has absolutely no impact on the legal disposition of the territory after the war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2010 7:35 PM GMT
    Report this topic, with its sensational yellow journalsim propaganda header - and no content - as spam.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Dec 13, 2010 3:07 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidReport this topic, with its sensational yellow journalsim propaganda header - and no content - as spam.


    Translation: c4 feels vulnerable when Israeli settlements in the West Bank are discussed, because they are clearly illegal under international law. Even worse, Israel knew in 1967 that the settlements were illegal, according to Israel's then senior legal advisor.

    c4 asserts that the New York Times publishes articles with "no content," and uses "sensational yellow journalism propaganda" headlines.

    The author of the NYT article is Gershom Gorenberg, whose book on settlements, "The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977," has received positive reviews, such as the ones amazon.com reprinted on its page for the book. see:

    http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Empire-Israel-Settlements-1967-1977/dp/0805082417/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292194468&sr=1-1

    Since Gorenberg is an expert on settlements, c4 cannot hope to compete in the debate based on facts and logic. So he uses Hasbara tactics, which emphasize insults, name calling, ad hominems, obfuscation, half-truths, deception, and finally, denying that Gorenberg has anything to say. What will c4's next step be, accuse people who hold different views with being "communists"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2010 5:58 AM GMT
    JakeBenson> neighboring Muslim countries invading Israel in 1967

    sxydrkhair> Get educated, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon aren't Muslim countries.
    sxydrkhair> I wonder what the Lebanese Maronite Christians will say if they read your post about Lebanon as a "Muslim" country.

    Get educated: Lebanon didn't attack Israel in 1967.

    The Muslim world considers Lebanon to be part of the Muslim world.
    It is at your own peril that you support groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas.


    Egypt, Jordan and Syria base parts of their legal system on Islamic law.

    sxydrkhair> ?


    sxydrkhair> They are nothing like Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

    No one claimed they were like those countries.

    Yet they are countries with a Muslim majority and belong to the OIC (which is not comparable to the irrelevant groups you listed, which I'm sure no one has ever heard of before and may never hear about again).