Palestinians own 40% of West Bank Settlements

[Higgly]

Israeli peace organization 'Peace Now' has discovered that, contrary to official Israeli statements, Palestinians are the rightful owners of much of the land upon which Israeli settlements have been built. This includes Male Adumim, the major Israeli population centre east of Jerusalem which is estimated to be on land over 80% owned by Palestinians. Male Adumim is one of the settlements George Bush said the Israelis should be able to keep under any peace agreement.

Palestinians 'own 40%' of Israeli West Bank settlements

[jbg]

Israeli peace organization 'Peace Now' has discovered that, contrary to official Israeli statements, Palestinians are the rightful owners of much of the land upon which Israeli settlements have been built. This includes Male Adumim, the major Israeli population centre east of Jerusalem which is estimated to be on land over 80% owned by Palestinians. Male Adumim is one of the settlements George Bush said the Israelis should be able to keep under any peace agreement.

Palestinians 'own 40%' of Israeli West Bank settlements

What's that a link to?

[Higgly]

What's that a link to?

I'm glad you asked, jbg. It's a link to an online newspaper article.

[Rue]

The conflict over ownership of West Bank lands is complicated.

As you are aware Jordan captured the territory in the War of Independance, (1948-49) and then annexed and kept it for 19 years. In the War of 1967, Israel went into the West Bank and Gaza and remained for security reasons to prevent the Gaza and West Bank being used as sites to launch terrorist attacks which they had been used continuously for, prior to 1967.

The West Bank has NO international status as it is not a country. It is disputed territory. Palestinians who live there may have legal rights to the land but the land does not yet form part of any nation. So let us be clear and state these Palestinians are Arabs who live in the territory without any sovereign rights but I would concede legally have rights of some sort. How we define them or call them is a difficult issue.

There is one line of legal arguement that says it is incorrect to refer to the West Bank as "occupied" because it does not come under the terms of any international treaties dealing with military occupation.

The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, Meir Shamgar argued (back in the 1970s) that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories because the convention is based on the legal assumption that there has been a legitimate sovereign who has been ousted. This is NOT the case with the West Bank and yet to this day most people treat the West Bank using the term "occupation" when you can only "occupy" a land when it was previously a legitimate sovereign nation.

Most people do not understand intenational law and the concept of occupation so use the word incorrectly. The situation of Israel in Jordan is equivalent to when Morrocco went into the Spanish Sahara. Interestingly in that legal dispute between Spain and Morrocco, no one accused Morroco of occupying the Spanish Sahara.

Likewise in the Kashmir, no one uses the word "occupying" Kashmir. In fact a proper legal example of an occupation would be China in Tibet.

Before 1967, Jordan militarily took over the West Bank as a result of their unilateral invasion in 1948, which was in fact illegal because it was in direct in defiance of the UN Security Council.

When Jordan then formally annexed the West Bank in 1950, of course its creator Britain recognized the annexation of the West Bank excluding the annexation of Jerusalem which Britain felt it shouldn't have done. Pakistan was in fact the only Muslim country or any other country that recognized the annexation. The Arab League did NOT recognize the annexation.

It was as a result of Jordan insisting on it, that the 1949 Armistice Line which created the 1949 to 1967 Israel border, was never a recognized by it to be an international border but only a demarcation line separating their armies.

The Armistice Agreement stated very clearly: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."

Here is where it gets complicated. Under international law, if you take over land in self-defence as opposed to taking it over not as an act of self-defence but simply as an act of aggression, the law treats the status of the seizure differently.

A former U.S. State Department lawyer, Stephen Schwebel, who went on to head the International Court of Justice in the Hague, stated in 1970 and I quote directly;

"Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

Now when we go back to the actual events on June 5, 1967, history shows, Israel only entered the West Bank after continuous Jordanian artillery fire and movement of Jordanian troops across the armistice lines.

In fact to be specific, Jordan's military attacks commenced at 10:00 a.m. and then Israel sent a warning to Jordan via the UN at 11:00 a.m. asking them to stop.

Jordan of course ignored this and continued attacking and then at 12.45 p.m. the Israeli military responded.

It should also be noted that Iraqi military forces had already crossed Jordanian territory and in the process of entering the West Bank.

This meant Jordan hand obviously abandoned any pretense of continuing to hour the "temporary" armistice boundaries that had lasted from 1949 to this time.

So when Israel then reacted and went in, clearly, from a military and legal perspective, it did not initiate the invasion but merely responded to Jordan beginning to attack it and Iraq preparing to attack it.

My point time and time again when we discuss the Middle East is that people either unaware of what actually happened or know what happened and want to revise history, ignore the origins of these conflicts such as this one in the West Bank and change the terms of history and therefore inappropriately use legal terms that should not be applied such as the term "occupation".

Israel went in to Jordan as a defensive military action. It didn't initiate the invasion just as it has never initiated attacks against the PLO or Hamas but has been involved in continuous responses to their initiated actions.

Pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 242 dated November 22, 1967 which went on to serve as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles, Israel was expected to withdraw "from territories" to and I quote "secure and recognized boundaries" .

It did NOT state or use the words withdraw from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War.

There is a reason why such words were used. There was a huge protacted legal arguement over what words to use. Israel argued that it had a right to protect itself and could only withdraw on a basis that would not leave it vulnerable to continued attacks.

In fact the Soviets argued for the use of the words full withdrawal and Lord Caradon, then the British UN Ambassador came up with the above words which the UN Security Council then unanimously accepted.

Inerestingly, when we listen to the discussions as to the dispute over the West Bank, the fact that the UN Security Council in fact recognized Israel's entitlement to part of the territories for defensible borders is completely ignored as if it doesn't exist. It still does.

As well Article 80 of the UN Charter also applies. It states that nothing in the UN Charter can be and I quote

"construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments."

Israel's rights in fact given to it by the League of Nations to form a nation were in legal fact, NOT affected by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947, ( the Partition Plan).

That partion plan ended up being rejected by the Arab League in any event.

In light of the above stated international law, Israel does in fact possess legal rights with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The extent and nature of those rights remain in dispute.

Now what I am saying clearly is that Israel had/has some sort of right to create borders to protect itself and that did not make it an occupying force.

This all became moot however as a result of the Oslo Accord.

Pursuant to that accord, Israel transferred powers from its military government in the West Bank and Gaza to the newly created Palestinian Authority.

Once the Oslo II Interim Agreement was concluded in September 1995, Palestinian administration was extended to the rest of the West Bank cities.

Let's be clear. The Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is already under Palestinian jurisdiction.

Israel in fact transferred 40 spheres of civilian authority, as well as responsibility for security and public order, to the Palestinian Authority.

What it did do, was retain powers for Israel's external security and the security of Israeli citizens and that is where the conflict is arising.

The crux of the problem today is Hamas and other terrorist groups in the West Bank.

Each time Israel deployments its military in direct response to terrorism, on the West Bank, it doesn't do so to occupy it does so to prevent terrorist attacks. This is precisely why Israel is building a huge wall. It wants out and feels the only way it can prevent attacks from the West Bank is a wall, because the other option means it has to keep going back into the West Bank after Hamas.

I personally believe it can not be argued that placing Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal. I think it can be legally argued that the military can be in the West Bank provided it is to defend against terrorist attacks, but the actual arguement as to who owns the land must be settled in a practical way. The Palestinians of the West Bank need that for a country and Israel knows this. It used settlement posts as

early warning zones to spy against in-coming terrorist attacks but all this did was inflame Palestinians on the West Bank and Sharon was in the process of disbanding them when more terrorist attacks arose delaying their abandonment.

Eventually all this land that is in dispute which Peace Now is claiming is illegally possessed by Israelis will be given back because Israel has no intention militarily of protecting it or defending it - the IDF i s only intersted in stopping the West Bank being used as a terrorist launching site-it is not interested in the land otherwise and time and time again Israel has indicated the same thing.

The remaining Israeli settlers on the West Bank will be removed making this article Higgly selected a moot point.

What is important to understand however, is that the West Bank was and still remains an uncategorized

area of land and how fast Israel withdraws depends on the anti-terrorist measures that can be put in place so that attacks from the West Bank can not happen.

It is no different then the problem with Gaza. Israel left the Gaza when terrorist attacks subsided. The moment it left, Hamas resumed its attacks and now Israel is left asking itself, should they have left Gaza in the first place because all that has happened is once they left, the violence resumes.

This is why huge walls are going up. Israel now believes the only solution is to place barriers between itself and the terrorist groups. These walls in the West Bank will necessarily cause disputes as to where they will traverse but the only other option is what? Well the option is Palestinians saying NO to terrorism. If they did this then Israel's presence in the West Bank or Gaza disappears.

So simple yet so difficult given the charter of Hamas and Hezbollah and othe terrorist groups which call for continued war until all of Israel is wiped off the map.

[Remiel]

Out of curiousity, barring Antarctica, what other " stateless lands " exist in the world other than Gaza and the West Bank?

[Higgly]

The conflict over ownership of West Bank lands is complicated.

As you are aware Jordan captured the territory in the War of Independance, (1948-49) and then annexed and kept it for 19 years. In the War of 1967, Israel went into the West Bank and Gaza and remained for security reasons to prevent the Gaza and West Bank being used as sites to launch terrorist attacks which they had been used continuously for, prior to 1967.

The West Bank has NO international status as it is not a country. It is disputed territory. Palestinians who live there may have legal rights to the land but the land does not yet form part of any nation. So let us be clear and state these Palestinians are Arabs who live in the territory without any sovereign rights but I would concede legally have rights of some sort. How we define them or call them is a difficult issue.

There is one line of legal arguement that says it is incorrect to refer to the West Bank as "occupied" because it does not come under the terms of any international treaties dealing with military occupation.

The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, Meir Shamgar argued (back in the 1970s) that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories because the convention is based on the legal assumption that there has been a legitimate sovereign who has been ousted. This is NOT the case with the West Bank and yet to this day most people treat the West Bank using the term "occupation" when you can only "occupy" a land when it was previously a legitimate sovereign nation.

Certainly one could never accuse an Israeli Supreme Court justice of having any sort of bias in a land dispute of this type . On the other hand, there was in fact an ousted sovereign authority - the Turks, who were ousted by the Brits. The Brits recognized the land titles issued by the Turks. The Geneva Conventions explicitly state that occupying powers must honour the land registry and must not transfer their own citizens to the occupied land. It is not Israel that gets to decide whether the Geneva Conventions apply. This is a matter of international law that can only be resolved in an international court. Otherwise, what is the point of having international law? Israel's refusal to recignize and abide by the Geneva Convetions makes it a rogue state that needs to be brought into line with the rest of the world. The same can be said of its continued refusal to enter into a Nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Most people do not understand intenational law and the concept of occupation so use the word incorrectly. The situation of Israel in Jordan is equivalent to when Morrocco went into the Spanish Sahara. Interestingly in that legal dispute between Spain and Morrocco, no one accused Morroco of occupying the Spanish Sahara.

Likewise in the Kashmir, no one uses the word "occupying" Kashmir. In fact a proper legal example of an occupation would be China in Tibet.

Yeah, Kashmir's a real good example. What you fail to grasp Rue, is that the land registry transcends occupations. A country can be occupied and re-occupied many times, but the people who hold title to the land still have those titles and the law says that those titles must be recognized.

Here is where it gets complicated. Under international law, if you take over land in self-defence as opposed to taking it over not as an act of self-defence but simply as an act of aggression, the law treats the status of the seizure differently.

Which is why Palestinians so often see Israel seizing land for 'security reasons' only then to see an Israeli settlement pop up on their seized property. This is just plain bureaucratic thuggery that shows Israel is well aware of the fact that it is violating international law and is trying to get around it with legal hocus-pocus.

A former U.S. State Department lawyer, Stephen Schwebel, who went on to head the International Court of Justice in the Hague, stated in 1970 and I quote directly;

"Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

Hmmm. A pro-Israeli statement coming from a Jewish-American State Department official. Now there's a shocker.

Now when we go back to the actual events on June 5, 1967, history shows, Israel only entered the West Bank after continuous Jordanian artillery fire and movement of Jordanian troops across the armistice lines.

When they signed a peace treaty, I guess that all ended, didn't it? In any case, Rue, you continue to ignore the central precept of the Geneva Convention which clearly says the land registry transcends and survives these sorts of circumstances. This is why Israel passed the abandonment laws on 1950 which illegally confiscated lands from the owners it had forcefully driven off of the land and then refused to allow back into the country. Having seen he broad acceptance of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, it knew it had no legal basis for what it was about to do and had to drum one up out of whole cloth.

The rest of your post is simply a square dance around this central point. The only authorities you are able to quote who reject that are either Israelis or Americans, and both are self-serving in the extreme.

[Remiel]

As convincing as the land title argument may be, Higgly, I think you are allowing yourself to fall victim to the same generalizations that help fuel these messes by saying that every legal opinion offered by an Israeli or American is compromised by bias. The quote on unlawful seizure vs. lawful defense is quite valid, I think. It just doesn't tell quite the whole story. It doesn't measure the strength of the claim of the those the land was unlawfully seized from versus those who seize it for self-defense, and that is the crux of the problem.

[Higgly]

As convincing as the land title argument may be, Higgly, I think you are allowing yourself to fall victim to the same generalizations that help fuel these messes by saying that every legal opinion offered by an Israeli or American is compromised by bias. The quote on unlawful seizure vs. lawful defense is quite valid, I think. It just doesn't tell quite the whole story. It doesn't measure the strength of the claim of the those the land was unlawfully seized from versus those who seize it for self-defense, and that is the crux of the problem.

You forget that I started this thread by quoting an Israeli organization. The reason that is is called International Law is that it needs more than the legal opinion of those whose interests are being served. That is not an anti-Israeli or anti-American position, it is just common sense. Not surprisingly, both the US and Israel refuse to recognize the World Court.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You want to solve ther problems of the Middle East? Very nice, delusional but nice. Those problems are for them to solve who live there, not us. Our opinions don't matter and it certainly isn't our place to interevene there. Best thing we can do for them is take two steps back, support no side in the conflict and refuse to give the conflicting parties any more than humanitarian assistance. Taking sides in a domestic dispute isn't too bright, it can get you killed. Both parties can turn on you at any time.

[Higgly]

Sure. That's we have these political forums, right?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yeah, I guess in the greater scheme of things this format of discussion makes more sense than others to a degree. Who knows maybe in the future an internet application of direct democracy will enable citizens to straighten out governments before the poop hits the fan.

[Higgly]

I'm with you there. Some form of direct democracy where citizens get to discuss and vote on legislation should be seriously looked into.

[Rue]

The conflict over ownership of West Bank lands is complicated.

As you are aware Jordan captured the territory in the War of Independance, (1948-49) and then annexed and kept it for 19 years. In the War of 1967, Israel went into the West Bank and Gaza and remained for security reasons to prevent the Gaza and West Bank being used as sites to launch terrorist attacks which they had been used continuously for, prior to 1967.

The West Bank has NO international status as it is not a country. It is disputed territory. Palestinians who live there may have legal rights to the land but the land does not yet form part of any nation. So let us be clear and state these Palestinians are Arabs who live in the territory without any sovereign rights but I would concede legally have rights of some sort. How we define them or call them is a difficult issue.

There is one line of legal arguement that says it is incorrect to refer to the West Bank as "occupied" because it does not come under the terms of any international treaties dealing with military occupation.

In fact a Palestinian journalist friend of mine has said, Hamas' decision to use women as shields caused a back-lash you are not privy to in the Western press. Even militant anti-Israeli Palestinians disagreed with this tactic. It may have contributed to Abbas being able to

buy some time. There is also a rumour that Israel made it clear it was going top be prepared to kill civilians if they placed themselves as shields and Hamas blinked first. Either way, we need peace to prevail. That is the fastest way to establish a state in the Gaza and the West Bank-demilitarization of Hamas and all terrorist groups.

It can be done. The people of Northern Ireland have proved it can be done.

The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, Meir Shamgar argued (back in the 1970s) that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories because the convention is based on the legal assumption that there has been a legitimate sovereign who has been ousted. This is NOT the case with the West Bank and yet to this day most people treat the West Bank using the term "occupation" when you can only "occupy" a land when it was previously a legitimate sovereign nation.

Certainly one could never accuse an Israeli Supreme Court justice of having any sort of bias in a land dispute of this type . On the other hand, there was in fact an ousted sovereign authority - the Turks, who were ousted by the Brits. The Brits recognized the land titles issued by the Turks. The Geneva Conventions explicitly state that occupying powers must honour the land registry and must not transfer their own citizens to the occupied land. It is not Israel that gets to decide whether the Geneva Conventions apply. This is a matter of international law that can only be resolved in an international court. Otherwise, what is the point of having international law? Israel's refusal to recignize and abide by the Geneva Convetions makes it a rogue state that needs to be brought into line with the rest of the world. The same can be said of its continued refusal to enter into a Nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Most people do not understand intenational law and the concept of occupation so use the word incorrectly. The situation of Israel in Jordan is equivalent to when Morrocco went into the Spanish Sahara. Interestingly in that legal dispute between Spain and Morrocco, no one accused Morroco of occupying the Spanish Sahara.

Likewise in the Kashmir, no one uses the word "occupying" Kashmir. In fact a proper legal example of an occupation would be China in Tibet.

Yeah, Kashmir's a real good example. What you fail to grasp Rue, is that the land registry transcends occupations. A country can be occupied and re-occupied many times, but the people who hold title to the land still have those titles and the law says that those titles must be recognized.

Here is where it gets complicated. Under international law, if you take over land in self-defence as opposed to taking it over not as an act of self-defence but simply as an act of aggression, the law treats the status of the seizure differently.

Which is why Palestinians so often see Israel seizing land for 'security reasons' only then to see an Israeli settlement pop up on their seized property. This is just plain bureaucratic thuggery that shows Israel is well aware of the fact that it is violating international law and is trying to get around it with legal hocus-pocus.

A former U.S. State Department lawyer, Stephen Schwebel, who went on to head the International Court of Justice in the Hague, stated in 1970 and I quote directly;

"Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

Hmmm. A pro-Israeli statement coming from a Jewish-American State Department official. Now there's a shocker.

Now when we go back to the actual events on June 5, 1967, history shows, Israel only entered the West Bank after continuous Jordanian artillery fire and movement of Jordanian troops across the armistice lines.

When they signed a peace treaty, I guess that all ended, didn't it? In any case, Rue, you continue to ignore the central precept of the Geneva Convention which clearly says the land registry transcends and survives these sorts of circumstances. This is why Israel passed the abandonment laws on 1950 which illegally confiscated lands from the owners it had forcefully driven off of the land and then refused to allow back into the country. Having seen he broad acceptance of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, it knew it had no legal basis for what it was about to do and had to drum one up out of whole cloth.

The rest of your post is simply a square dance around this central point. The only authorities you are able to quote who reject that are either Israelis or Americans, and both are self-serving in the extreme.

Your debating style of accusing someone of being bias but not taking what they say and debating it, merely summarily rejecting it by calling them bias without any proof they are bias or more important that their bias vitiates what they have said - is well quite frankly tiresome.

The Supreme Court Judge of Israel you summarily dismissed found many land title judgements in favour of Arab Israelis-bit you are so busy calling him names without knowing who he is and what he stands for that you missed that.

Likewise the American legal advisor you dismissed as bias also has presented papers and positions favouring Arabs in many land disputes-but again you are so busy labeling this man you wouldn't know that.

As for your repeated reference to a land registry, that land registry can not establish proper claim to title of land for many Palestinians or Arabs because it never registered their claims. You are arguing about a land registry that was never accurate and was used to rob land from poor Arabs as the method to prove their title. Do you not understand that the very registry you are trying to quote to base Arab land claims does them injustice and does not properly establish their claim? If anything if you bothered to look at that land claim registry, read it, understand its origins, understand how it was used, understand who used it and who reported title to property in it, you wouldn't toss it about like some sort of automatic holy grail that establishes your point. If anything it does the exact opposite.

More to the point, what you again completely ignored is THAT EVEN IF Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank have titleship to land or some sort of legal rights to that land, it all becomes a moot point of Hamas uses that land as a site to launch terrorist attacks. That is the point you completely ignore.

These innocent Palestinian Arabs whose land is used as missile launch sites or bases to launch Hamas attacks get caught up in a war of attrition. If they are not innocent and deliberately allowing their land to be used to launch attacks, then excuse me if I have no sympathy for the IDF seizing them to protect Israelis.

I think what I have said all along is that if Israel does not need to go onto any land in the West Bank to defend itself it should not and is attempting to extricate itself from the West Bank and this issue you have raised is a moot point. The settlers who are on the West Bank will as part of an over-all peace compromise have to leave and Sharon demonstrated his willingness to remove them before his stroke.

Just last night, there has been a very fragile treaty established between Hamas and the IDF in Gaza. Hamas has given Abbas 6 months to negotiate with Israel as to the Gaza. It is a precarious deal because Israel has told Abbas, we won't go back in Gaza if they do not launch missile attacks or terrorists against us-but if they do we will have to go back in. Abbas is now on the hot seat trying to balance things.

If he can achieve a mutual detente in Gaza it necessarily will assist in the West Bank dispute.

[Higgly]

The Supreme Court Judge of Israel you summarily dismissed found many land title judgements in favour of Arab Israelis-bit you are so busy calling him names without knowing who he is and what he stands for that you missed that.

Likewise the American legal advisor you dismissed as bias also has presented papers and positions favouring Arabs in many land disputes-but again you are so busy labeling this man you wouldn't know that.

That is not the point, Rue. The point is that they have no jurisdiction and that they are recused on the grounds of conflict of interest.

As for your repeated reference to a land registry, that land registry can not establish proper claim to title of land for many Palestinians or Arabs because it never registered their claims. You are arguing about a land registry that was never accurate and was used to rob land from poor Arabs as the method to prove their title. Do you not understand that the very registry you are trying to quote to base Arab land claims does them injustice and does not properly establish their claim? If anything if you bothered to look at that land claim registry, read it, understand its origins, understand how it was used, understand who used it and who reported title to property in it, you wouldn't toss it about like some sort of automatic holy grail that establishes your point. If anything it does the exact opposite.

Well fine Rue. Take this up with Peace Now, then.

More to the point, what you again completely ignored is THAT EVEN IF Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank have titleship to land or some sort of legal rights to that land, it all becomes a moot point of Hamas uses that land as a site to launch terrorist attacks. That is the point you completely ignore.

The principle of occupying land for self-defence only applies until the threat is mitigated. It does not give anyone permission to build major permanent civilian population centres.

If he can achieve a mutual detente in Gaza it necessarily will assist in the West Bank dispute.

I'm with you there and I have to say that I was quite disappointed to see reports that the Palestinians had fired more rockets today. Olmert's restraint is admirable, and I say this not having a lot of respect for Olmert.

[Rue]

Out of curiousity, barring Antarctica, what other " stateless lands " exist in the world other than Gaza and the West Bank?

To answer your question, you were of course exactly dead on about Antartica and that also includes disputes with the Southern Ocean.

The most currrent listing of territorial disputes which provides an excellent synopsis is the CIA worldbook.

However it is actually quite difficult to find territorial disputes where the territory or land in dispute is stateless. Most disputes are between nations over land that was under a state prior to the dispute.

The closest analogy to West Bank is the Western Sahara dispute. Basically what was called Spanish Sahara, a vast desert below Morrocco was technically a Spanish colony/protectorate. It basically is a large desert with minimal natural resources. Technically Western Sahara was and is a non self-governing territory. When the Spanish withdrew it was really left with no succession plan. There was a lot of confusion. Morrocco unilaterally invaded in 1975 and has been there ever since but technically its a non-self governing territory and Morrocco is not referred to as an occupier although unlike Israel in the West Bank, went in, not to stop a war or defend itself, but to make a claim for the territory.

Technically there are areas of land on the Afghani-Pakistan-India-China borders that have been under constant dispute between the nations and technically are areas that are stateless because prior to these countries no other colonial power acting established control over them-so they are in dispute now but are technically stateless regions.

A similiar analogy could be said with land disputes between Saudi Arabia and Yemen and United Arab Emirates adn Saudi Arabia because the land in question was never really occuped by the British or anyone else when they were colonial powers and basically was empty and ungoverned. To this date the borders between Saudi Arabia, Yemen and United Arab Emirates are under dispute as to who has control to which portion of these empty stateless regions.

East Timor is close but not quite. Technically East Timor was not stateless it was a Portugese colony, but when Portugal left, it was technically stateless as it was planning to become an independent nation when of course Indonesia invaded it and seized it.

Again all the stateless region disputes I have mentioned do not consist of a country going in for self-defence but they went in to establish claims of sovereignty. Under international law, forced seizure of land constitutes ownership if it goes uninterupted or challenged for a consectuive period of time, i.e., 40 years.

Now up in Northern Canada, all along the Artic regions, the United States does NOT recognize Canadian sovereignty and considers this area stateless or subject to use of all nations.

Cyprus is another state that to this day is technically a mess because prior to the Greek and Turkish attempts at conquering it and turning it into a colony (it is currently occupied by Turkey) it could be argued to have been stateless.

Now today we do actually have a country that is stateless and that is Somalia. It legally has no real government. It is run by competing war lords and even the feudal lord who claims to be the sovereign is NOT legally although the U.S. may be more sympathetic to him then Al Quaeda pro-militias that now claim to run Mogadishu. Technically Somalia is a stateless state. It has no official government or any services or any tax collection system. So if Ethiopia goes into Somalia to prevent terrorist attacks against Ethiopia we might have an analogy to the West Bank although its forcing it.

Likewise the Republic of Congo and Liberia could be argued to have been or are stateless, although there are clear colonial borders that can be referred to.

The actual border between Chad and Libya deals with areas delineated by the French and British but may be in fact inexact and never properly established as the areas in question contained no one and were never properly visited in the first place.

Certainly you could argue Afghanistan's Taliban regime was not legal when it did exist and was in fact a defacto but not a de jure government.

The West Bank is unique in that that it is a small chunk of Palestine (Jordan, Israel, Gaza) that fell between the cracks.

The Palestinian area was NOT and was never a state. Turkey administered it but was an absent land-lord and the Ottoman Empire did not set up elaborate government administration systems like say the British or French. Palestine was basically a barren place of malaria filled swamps, desert and mostly empty. Beduin Arabs travelled through it as they have for centuries but Beduins do not attach to land. They are like the wind. They move with the wind. They are drifters not establishing permanency. The Muslim and Jewish and Christian people that did establish themselves through-out Palestine were really squatters. The land registry system Higgly keeps referring to was meaningless. It was used by absentee business people from Turkey to

claim ownership to huge amounts of land they never saw. Then poor Muslims would squat on the land and as long as they paid rent no one said anything. So its hard to know how many of these poor Muslim farmers really hand land ownership because it may have never been properly recognized or registered which was my point in the first place. We do know Jews bought land ownership because they made a point of following the laws in place when they bought the land although historic records now bring even that into dispute and claim there was Jewish property not properly registered similiar to improper registry of Muslim owned lands.

Keep in mind the Turks didn't go out and delineate boundaries and do surveys. Its not a land registry system like it was in Canada. It was simply a book saying who should be paying taxes to the Sultan and basically listing people's names which was then used as a source to try draft people into the Sultan's army.

When Britain and France went into the Middle East to fight Turkey in World War One, they basically ignored the land titles and did what-ever they wanted. When Britain created Trans Jordan it did so illegally violating its pledge under the League of Nations and seizing 80% of Palestinian and placing it under the Hashemite Kingdom monarchy. This in effect stole land from Muslim Arabs and gave it to the British puppet king. Neither Palestinian Arabs or Palestinian Jews were allowed to claim ownership of land or citizenship in Jordan. So in fact, Britain created a puppet regime that seized 80% of it. The remaining parcel of land in what is known as 1949-1967 Israel was under a British mandate but it was a mandate awarded the British through the League of Nations. This same League of Nations guaranteed a Jewish homeland before the British arbitrarily acted to seize and take 80% of Palestine away so it could never be considered as part of Jewish homeland. The remaining portion was then proposed to be divided into two enclaves one for Palestinians and one for Jews. It ignored the 80% of Palestine now turned into Trans Jordan because the British forced everyone's hand. It is similiar to the way Britain marched into Iraq and created a country there or how France unilaterally decided to turn Lebanon into a state. They simly imposed their will.

For that matter when Turkey ran things as the Ottoman Empire it did the same. The difference was though the Ottoman Empire did not keep clear records of borders and boundaries while the British and French were very careful in what borders they carved up. While Higgly goes off on a tangent about the land registry what he fails to understand is the land registry means zilch if colonial powers come in and start artificially marking borders removing land from one country and placing it in another-that over-rides any land registry and that is the major flaw with Higgly's arguement. He fails to understand how much land was arbitrarily seized NOT by Israel but by Britain and France rendering the land registry meaningless and causing for example the British to reinvent the land registry to justify Trans Jordan.

The West Bank was a forgotten chunk of land. It technically was envisioned in the Jewish homeland that the League of Nations recognized. What then happened was in 1948-49, when the British mandate expires, and the Jewish people in Palestine invoked pursuant to the international law of the time and the UN Charter their right to create a nation-it was immediately rejected by the Arab League who chose war instead. So technically the borders of the Israeli state could not be created peacefully because war broke out making that impossible. The 1949-1967 border of Israel was established by a war. International law recognized that border as what was created as a self-defence action by Jews to protect themselves from being killed by the Arab League. The 1949 Israel border was a de facto border that then over time became recognized de jure.

The West Bank was in fact seized by the Jordanian Army and it stayed occupied by Jordan until 1967 but Jordan never administered it like colony. Jordan simply would not allow Israel to claim it. The border between Israel and Jordan was NOT an international border. It was a demarcation line pursuant to a military truce and Jordan never recognized it as an international border. The Arab League never recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank.

So Higgly can keep referring to an antiquated Turkish land registry system that did not properly register poor Muslim farmer land rights, but it becomes a moot point of Jordan's army occupied it and there was no

government in the West Bank as part of Jordan's state.

It wasn't until Israel established a treaty with the PLO pursuant to Oslo that the West Bank was then to be administered by the Palestinian Authority. From 1967 to he Oslo accord argreement, it was administered by an Israeli military administrator but what Higgly does not understand, the IDF, was not interested in the land for anything but security operations.

The Jewish settlers that went into the West Bank did so mostly illegally. What happened was the Israel government felt this settlers would be a good forward warning posts that could se4rve to tip of the IDF of incoming terrorist attacks. Of course that did not happen. Instead the Palestinians in the West Bank simply went to war with the Israeli settlers and they lived in protracted tensions with sporadic killings or attacks but relatively peaceful UNTIL the PLO and then Hamas created the intifadah.

Israel can easily under international law make some sort of claim to portions of the West Bank to protct itself against terrorism. What it would lose on, is if it tries to establish private citizenship ownership of the lands for the simple reason even the domestic real estate laws of Israel may not recognize some of the land title transfers. There is arguement that West Bank Muslim farmers have sold their land legally and without coercion to Israeli settlers and that should be distiguished but the reality is the West Bank will be the major area of the Palestine nation and even if Jewish Israelis could establish land ownership it will be used for a Palestinian state making that a moot point.

The real point is, all civilian claims to land can not be looked at in isolation from military and counter-terrorist considerations. Individuals who own land being used to launch terrorist attacks, lose their rights to land ownership under international law by a superceding right of a nation to protect its citizens from crimes being launched from that land. That may be unfair, but as I have continually stated, the best way to assure fairness, is to make sure there are no terrorists, then the IDF does not have any need to be on the land or put up a wall dividing the land or cutting it off and the whole thing becomes a moot point.

[Higgly]

The Palestinian area was NOT and was never a state....

Your excursion into the Antarctic and other various nether regions of the world aside, this is not true. The Ottoman Empire lasted for 600 years. With all due respect, do we really have to go back to the March of the Penguins?

[jbg]

The Palestinian area was NOT and was never a state....

Your excursion into the Antarctic and other various nether regions of the world aside, this is not true. The Ottoman Empire lasted for 600 years. With all due respect, do we really have to go back to the March of the Penguins?

So you're saying now that the Ottomoan Turk rule constituted "Palestininan" self-determination? How?

[Rue]

The Palestinian area was NOT and was never a state....

Your excursion into the Antarctic and other various nether regions of the world aside, this is not true. The Ottoman Empire lasted for 600 years. With all due respect, do we really have to go back to the March of the Penguins?

What was the point of the above comment. When I describe such comments as "playing the fool" you complain to the moderator, but what would you call the above? What was the point of your comment?

The Ottoman Empre's duration and length of time has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the West Bank is a stateless land and became stateless because the transfer from the Ottoman Empire to Britain of Palestinian land, was never done legally and completely and the Leage of Nations and UN Charter made it clear that some of the land was to be for Jewish homelands and some for Arab homelands.

That was the point Higgly. When the British and French rested the lands from the Ottomans by war, it created legal anomolies and gaps and holes and any one who understands history and international law can understand this. It is not a joke. It has nothing to do with penquins. It has to do with international law and how land ownership is transferred and what happens is if the transfer is done illegally which is what Britain did when it created Trans Jordan. It has to do with international law allowing Israel to create safe and defensible borders once the Arab League refused to follow the UN Charter.

You can make all the dim witted comments you want Higgly about penquins but all it shows is your ignorance. When people try to discuss international law and the concept of "occupation" and statelessness, all you can do is reduce it to the above comments. That is what I call playing the fool, and I do not appreciate it. If you do not want to discuss the concept of statelessness and how it affects international law, then just refrain.

Also for your information, what is going on now in the Antartic has direct legal implications on how stateless land is given status. Rather then turn it into something to laugh at, try read about it and understand it.

[Rue]

"That is not the point, Rue. The point is that they have no jurisdiction and that they are recused on the grounds of conflict of interest."

Once again you missed the point Higgly,. The legal sources I quoted were speaking as private citizens expressing legal opinions. They have no conflict of interest because they are not servinga s Judges determining who owns the land. Their comments were as to legal concepts not specific cases.

"Well fine Rue. Take this up with Peace Now, then."

Why would I do that, I am a member of Peace Now! More to the point Higgly if you bother to read what I take the time to respond with you would see I personally agree that legally, private Israelis will lose if they try argue for ownership of certain West Bank lands.

"The principle of occupying land for self-defence only applies until the threat is mitigated. It does not give anyone permission to build major permanent civilian population centres."

Again you are trying to suggest arguements I never made. I never argued in favour of permanent civilian population centres nor did I ever state the doctrine of self-defence could justify permanent civilian population centres. What I have stated and will state again, is that Israel can invoke the right of self-defence if the threat of terrorism can not be mitigated-what the form of that self-defence takes is not black and white. International law allows Israel to establish safe and defensible borders. That is the whole point Higgly trying to decide what is safe and defensible. It becomes easier on innocent Palestinians in the West Bank to enjoy ownership of the land if there is no terrorim to justify the IDF going in. That is the point.

I have already stated quite a few times that placing settlements in the West Bank as early warning sites for terrorism was a disaster and only made matters worse and legally is not sound and probably not defensible even under Israeli law (which would not apply-in such a case, most probably the international court would have the last say.

The only legal arguement I have is that for the international courts to say the walls Israel are building are illegal, they also have to find there is no reason for them-in fact the same international courts that have hinted or madepreliminary rulings that the walls are illegal did NOT deny Hamas still constitutes a threat which means this contradicted or vitiated their findings and makes them appealable or non binding.

Its a complicated issue. It is not black and white.

Again I repeat, the best way to establish a homeland and avoid disputes as to ownership of land in the West Bank is to give the IDF no reason to be there-get rid of terrorists and then the innocent Palestinian people of that region can be left alone and not have to deal with the IDF or anyone else.

[Higgly]

So you're saying now that the Ottomoan Turk rule constituted "Palestininan" self-determination? How?

Thanks for asking. Because they were a sovereign governing body and because they maintained a land registry. I am not intricately familiar with the legal issues regarding the Antarctic, but it has never had an all-encompassing legal sovereign power, nor a steady and permanent human population. It has been a model of international co-operation. Any attempt to compare it to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is pretty desperate IMHO.

[Higgly]

Iam having problems witht eh quote feature so I am highlighting my responses in green.

Higgly said: "That is not the point, Rue. The point is that they have no jurisdiction and that they are recused on the grounds of conflict of interest."

Once again you missed the point Higgly,. The legal sources I quoted were speaking as private citizens expressing legal opinions. They have no conflict of interest because they are not servinga s Judges determining who owns the land. Their comments were as to legal concepts not specific cases.

So you are saying that the opinion of an Israel citizen has more weight than the Geneva Conventions? For God's sake, man.

Higgly said: "Well fine Rue. Take this up with Peace Now, then."

Why would I do that, I am a member of Peace Now! More to the point Higgly if you bother to read what I take the time to respond with you would see I personally agree that legally, private Israelis will lose if they try argue for ownership of certain West Bank lands.

OK. You're a member. They say that Palestinians own 40% of the land. Argue with them! Why are you paying dues?

Higgly said: "The principle of occupying land for self-defence only applies until the threat is mitigated. It does not give anyone permission to build major permanent civilian population centres."

Again you are trying to suggest arguements I never made. I never argued in favour of permanent civilian population centres nor did I ever state the doctrine of self-defence could justify permanent civilian population centres. What I have stated and will state again, is that Israel can invoke the right of self-defence if the threat of terrorism can not be mitigated-what the form of that self-defence takes is not black and white.

International law allows Israel to establish safe and defensible borders.

It most certainly does not. It allows it to defend its borders. That's where the argument lies. Where are the borders?

That is the whole point Higgly trying to decide what is safe and defensible. It becomes easier on innocent Palestinians in the West Bank to enjoy ownership of the land if there is no terrorim to justify the IDF going in. That is the point.

/quote]

So you take their land to defend your borders? Fine. Where are the borders, Rue?

I have already stated quite a few times that placing settlements in the West Bank as early warning sites for terrorism was a disaster and only made matters worse and legally is not sound and probably not defensible even under Israeli law (which would not apply-in such a case, most probably the international court would have the last say.

What is this? You build a city the size of Guelph because you are worried about terrorism? Gimme a break.

Again I repeat, the best way to establish a homeland and avoid disputes as to ownership of land in the West Bank is to give the IDF no reason to be there-get rid of terrorists and then the innocent Palestinian people of that region can be left alone and not have to deal with the IDF or anyone else.

The IDF will always find a reason. More importantly Rue, is that you have placed the fate of the Palestinians in the hands of an external military force managed by a government in which they have no say. Do you understand what that means in terms of international law? You are supporting the invasion of Kuwait by Sadddam.

[White Doors]

With all due respect Rue, I think this flippant comment by Higgly demonstrates his Anti-semitism more clearly than your examples:

Again I repeat, the best way to establish a homeland and avoid disputes as to ownership of land in the West Bank is to give the IDF no reason to be there-get rid of terrorists and then the innocent Palestinian people of that region can be left alone and not have to deal with the IDF or anyone else.

The IDF will always find a reason

So there ya have it. Israel will do it anyways.

I'd recommend ignoring his posts.

[Higgly]

With all due respect Rue, I think this flippant comment by Higgly demonstrates his Anti-semitism more clearly than your examples:

Again I repeat, the best way to establish a homeland and avoid disputes as to ownership of land in the West Bank is to give the IDF no reason to be there-get rid of terrorists and then the innocent Palestinian people of that region can be left alone and not have to deal with the IDF or anyone else.

The IDF will always find a reason

So there ya have it. Israel will do it anyways.

I'd recommend ignoring his posts.

Indeed they will, and the IDF is the reason (Jabotinsky and his Iron Wall). But, guess what, it's not working, and the Arabs are getting stronger.

Ignore my posts if you will, but you are an Ostrich with its head in the sand.

[Black Dog]

The IDF will always find a reason

So there ya have it. Israel will do it anyways.

I'd recommend ignoring his posts.

What's anti-semitic about that?

Again I repeat, the best way to establish a homeland and avoid disputes as to ownership of land in the West Bank is to give the IDF no reason to be there-get rid of terrorists and then the innocent Palestinian people of that region can be left alone and not have to deal with the IDF or anyone else.

Wait a sec, Rue. What about Israel's settlements in the West Bank? You can't talk about terrorism in the West Bank as a barrier to peace wihout mentioning the 400,000 Israeli settlers that have been transferred into that territory over the years. That's a bit io a roadblock to the million and a half or so Palestinians, don't you think?

[Higgly]

... wihout mentioning the 400,000 Israeli settlers that have been transferred into that territory over the years.

In defiance of the 4th Geneva Convention. Rue, these conventions protect Jews as well as Palestinians. The devil is in the details...