Peace in Occupied Palestine

[Bonam]

But the law is inanimate and doesn't care about whether it has a problem. So the problem is for people to deal with the law. Are you saying international law should be changed for Israel, or that Israel is exempt from the law?

Just because something is a "law" doesn't mean it is right, or realistic. There are many examples of unjust or non-functional laws. If a law is either unjust or unrealistic, then it should be changed. This situation is not specific to Israel.

The problem with that is that it isn't really generous to give people back less than what they are due.

They aren't "due" anything from Israel, so they are being offered much more than they are due, thus generosity.

Since it would be against international law, I don't understand what you mean by 'right' there.

Right within a historical context of what has happened in countless prior confrontaints, many of which resulted in more stable borders. Defining something as "right" or "wrong" based on unrealistic, arbitrary international law is a flawed way of defining morality.

You think so? I don't.

Anyway what would stop Egypt and Jordan from just setting up Palestinian states there after the handover?

Yeah I think Israel would agree, or at least seriously consider it. As for Egypt and Jordan setting up Palestinian states there, sure if they could then that'd be up to them. Wouldn't be Israel's responsibility any more though, and so Israel would be happy about that. Do you know that presently what little economic viability Gaza and the West Bank have all comes from Israel? Israel would love to stop having to spend money and resources there if someone else took up responsibility for those areas.

Well then, why don't they?

Because, as you well know, they get rockets launched at them and suicide bombers coming in across the border. Perhaps try reading the next sentence after the one you quoted.

Why should they take less than their due?

They shouldn't. However, they are being offered more than their due from Israel, and thus should eagerly accept it. The only nations that owe something to the Palestinians are those that used the areas of the West Bank and Gaza to attempt invasion of Israel, then got defeated and lost those lands, and then refused to allow the Arabs living on those lands from coming within their new borders. These nations (Jordan, Egypt etc) are the ones that should be offering Palestinians land, not Israel.

[Rue]

Given Figleaf's admitting his agenda for his post I have deleted my response.

[Rue]

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations:

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

They very manner in which you pose the question provides your opinion and answer.

I''m not sure how I could have posed the question differently to canvass the subject I am directed toward here.

Why ask a question you answer?

Of course you have already read some of my views. The reason I am asking is that by examining opposing views I can assist people to understand that my view is the correct one.

Well now. I would tell yourself to give yourself a hand, but it appears you are already doing that with yourself.

[AndrewL]

On cue the same old anti-Israel posters come on and toss the word "occupied" about.

The West Bank has never been part of any nation. It was mandated as an area by the League of Nations to be used to create a Jewish state. When Britain illegally and unilaterally crfeated TransJordan from 80% of Palestine and then flooded it with Muslims from outside the area and forbid Jews from living in it as part of its plan to prevent an Israeli state it left the West Bank and what is today Israel out of its carved empire.

The 1949 border Israel ended up with came about not because of any application of law but because of the application of war.

The border from 1949 to 1967 was a de facto border and such borders become legal if after a prolonged period of time they remain the same.

Jordan only recognized the 1949 border when it signed a peace treaty with Israel a relatively short time period ago. Until then Jordan never recognized the border with Israel.

Jordan ended up "occupying" the West Bank from 1949 to 1967. It did so illegally but of course the Israel poo poo posse always skips that part and how Jordan annexed the West Bank but did nothing for the people living there-nothing.

Israel took over the West Bank in 1967 because of a war. Jordan stacked its border with its own troops. Iraqis, and other Arab League nation troops and was preparing to invade Israel when Israel engaged in the 67 war with pre-emptive strikes.

Now can we once and for all tell these anti-ISrael experts that you can not occupy a land that has never been a country. The word occupy is applied when you take over another soveriegn nation's country or part of its country.

The Israel poo poo posse continually misappropriates and misuses the word occupy because they feel if you are physically somewhere, it means you occupy it. No that is not how international law defines it.

If Israel the West Bank had been in fact a sovereign nation, then Israel would be occupying it.

When Israel went into the West Bank they did so pursuant to the 4th Geneva Convention right to protect itself from war and terrorist actions.

Where in the definition of occupation does it state that the place being occupied has to be deemed a country or nation?

Occupation simply requires a place to occupy, a people to be occupied, and a military to do the occupying. Thats it.

Now, does Israel have legitimate security concerns? Sure.

But for what purpose do they continue to freight in religious settlers to build brand new settlements in the west bank? What goal does that serve? Are they just human shields? Does Israel intend to take the entire west bank permanently and completely dash any hopes of a Palestinian state? And if they do, do they plan on continuing the program of not allowing Palestinians to participate politically in the jewish democracy?

Where does that leave the Palestinian population? Do they remain as prisoners permanently inside a greater israel that finally realizes its dreams of controlling the entire region?

These questions need answers. Nobody seems to know what the goal of israel is, at least with the Arabs we know what they want.

Andrew

[Figleaf]

But the law is inanimate and doesn't care about whether it has a problem. So the problem is for people to deal with the law. Are you saying international law should be changed for Israel, or that Israel is exempt from the law?

Just because something is a "law" doesn't mean it is right, or realistic. There are many examples of unjust or non-functional laws. If a law is either unjust or unrealistic, then it should be changed. This situation is not specific to Israel.

SO then, are you saying international law should be changed for Israel, or that Israel should be exempt from the law?

The problem with that is that it isn't really generous to give people back less than what they are due.

They aren't "due" anything from Israel, so they are being offered much more than they are due, thus generosity.

They surely are 'due' something from Israel. At the very least they are 'due' that Israel should cease preventing them from exercising self-determination in the lands set aside for them in 1947-48.

Since it would be against international law, I don't understand what you mean by 'right' there.

Right within a historical context of what has happened in countless prior confrontaints, many of which resulted in more stable borders. Defining something as "right" or "wrong" based on unrealistic, arbitrary international law is a flawed way of defining morality.

Ah, your normative stance on what their 'rights' ought to be. I see.

Well then, why don't they?

Because, as you well know, they get rockets launched at them and suicide bombers coming in across the border.

I fail to see how that makes it necessary to continue doing the very thing that is prompting the attacks i.e. occupy Palestine.

[Bonam]

I fail to see how that makes it necessary to continue doing the very thing that is prompting the attacks i.e. occupy Palestine.

Every decrease in the extent of occupation so far has resulted in more rocket attacks, not less. For example, the pullout from Lebanon ended up with Hezbollah obtaining thousands huge amounts of armaments and becoming more aggressive against Israel, which resulted in a tragic conflict last summer. Similarly, Israel's pullout from Gaza has only increased the amount of rockets being fired at Israel from that region. It is quite understandable why Israel would be reluctant to retract the occupation any further without some method to insure that attacks against it don't increase yet again.

Also, perhaps you would like to reply to the issue of why you believe it's Israel that owes these people any land when in fact it was Jordan and Egypt that used that land to attack Israel, then lost that land in the ensuing conflict, and then refused to allow the people living on that land (the Jordanian and Egyptian Arabs that are now commonly called Palestinians) from coming within their new borders. If anyone has unjustly wronged the people of Palestine and owes them anything, it is Jordan and Egypt.

[Figleaf]

I fail to see how that makes it necessary to continue doing the very thing that is prompting the attacks i.e. occupy Palestine.

Every decrease in the extent of occupation so far has resulted in more rocket attacks, not less.

That's not true. First, in general terms, the rocket attacks have been more or less stable since the Wall was more or less finished.

Also, specifically, at least at the the initial establishment of the PA there was a substantial decrease in conflict for a while.

Anyway, the problem is that partial easing of Occupation from time to time is not a solution or a redress for the grievances.

For example, the pullout from Lebanon ended up with Hezbollah obtaining thousands huge amounts of armaments and becoming more aggressive against Israel, which resulted in a tragic conflict last summer.

Ummm, wasn't it rather Israel's incursion into Lebanon in search of their captured soldier that led to that tragic conflict? That's the sequence of events I observed in the media.

Also, perhaps you would like to reply to the issue of why you believe it's Israel that owes these people any land when in fact it was Jordan and Egypt that used that land to attack Israel, ...

Glady, provided you will respond to this issue:

Just because something is a "law" doesn't mean it is right, or realistic. There are many examples of unjust or non-functional laws. If a law is either unjust or unrealistic, then it should be changed. This situation is not specific to Israel.

SO then, are you saying international law should be changed for Israel, or that Israel should be exempt from the law?

[Bonam]

Ummm, wasn't it rather Israel's incursion into Lebanon in search of their captured soldier that led to that tragic conflict? That's the sequence of events I observed in the media.

Umm.. that soldier didn't just randomly become captured by thin air you know. There was a chain of events:

First: Israel pulls out of Lebanon

Next: Hezbollah, no longer kept in check by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, gains more recruits and obtains more weapons, and increases in confidence

Next: Hezbollah does a raid inside Israel, killing several soldiers and capturing two

Next: Israel retaliates, seeking to dismantle or at least damage Hezbollah, which has demonstrated itself as a violent threat, and to hopefully find its missing soldiers

Saying that the conflict was "because of Israel's incursion" is an extreme fallacy. It's equally ridiculous as saying that World War II was because the US attacked Japanese possessions in the Pacific. Israel's incursion WAS the confrontation, it wasn't the cause of the confrontation.

As for your question about law, I already answered. Unjust or unrealistic law should be changed. It would not be being changed "for Israel", because the issue of unjust or unrealistic international law applies to all countries. If there is a law that states that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is unlawful, then that same law should also state that the Canadian occupation of First Nations lands is unlawful, for example. Does that mean Canada should cede all lands that natives might happen to demand? International law needs to be held to a certain standard of realism if it is to be applied, and where it fails to be realistic it has to be changed. There is nothing about that statement which is specific to Israel.

[Rue]

[

"Where in the definition of occupation does it state that the place being occupied has to be deemed a country or nation? "

Its called international law. There are doctrines in international law or basic precepts. Such doctrines have arisen from many sources over the years including conventions, and cases in international court. You won't find it in any one document or case just as for example if you ask me where does the concept of soverignty come from.

May I suggest you simply go on the web and surf international law concepts.

"Occupation simply requires a place to occupy, a people to be occupied, and a military to do the occupying. Thats it."

No that is not it. That is what a layman thinks. Its like saying, you shoot, someone dies. Its murder. No not necessarily. For it to be murder, ne has to establish the person who committed the act intended to kill the person (mens rea) (criminal intent), in fact carried out the action, and was not justified in carrying out the action. No I am sorry to say you can't take international law and turn it into simplistic concepts that suit day to day language.

"Now, does Israel have legitimate security concerns? Sure."

Thank you for acknowledging that. I appreciate you at least concede that.

"But for what purpose do they continue to freight in religious settlers to build brand new settlements in the west bank? What goal does that serve? "

None. It is politically in my opinion only exasperating things. It may have at one point be intended as an anti-terrorist concept, i.e., use settlement posts as early warning posts for terrorist acts, but it politically has only served as a magnet for more terrorist attacks.

"Are they just human shields?"

In fact at poin that was exactly what these settlers were used for in the war on terror. They also became a symbol that reminded the West Bank Palestinians that they were impotent and powerless to control their future.

"Does Israel intend to take the entire west bank permanently and completely dash any hopes of a Palestinian state?"

Time and time again show 80-90% of Israelis polled do not want anything to do with the West Bank and realize the settlements have to be disbanded for there to be peace. Please believe me the majority of Israelis understand for their to be peace there needs to be a second Palestinian state in the West Bank.

There are some very angry, loud, Israelis who believe Judea and Somaria legally belong to Israel and there are Israelis who believe the West Bank was in fact always part of the League of Nations mandate promised to a Jewish state, but the majority of Israelis understand if there is to be peace, one needs to create a West Bank nation.

The issue holding up peace is not disbanding settlements, but how and when to do it. It became impossible to do, when Arafat suddenly reverted back to the destroy Israel at all costs approach he did. It in fact prevented the Palestinian moderates within the Palestinian Authority from making an orderly transition.

It does not mean in the future it can not be done.

"And if they do, do they plan on continuing the program of not allowing Palestinians to participate politically in the jewish democracy? "

I am not sure what you meant by the above? Muslim and Christian Israelis have full participation and equal legal rights within Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank have made it clear they do not wish to be Israeli or Jordanian but which to be citizens in their own country. It would be unrealistic to think West Bank Palestinians want to be anything but independent Palestinians.

"Where does that leave the Palestinian population? "

Trapped in a never ending hell. As long as terrorists exploit their name and statelessness to justify terrorism, they suffer because each time Israel retaliates to defend its people they get caught in the cross fire not to mention they suffer at the hands of the terrorists who forbid them from doing anything peaceful with Israel or Jordan.

" Do they remain as prisoners permanently inside a greater israel that finally realizes its dreams of controlling the entire region?"

Israel has nod esire to control the entire region politically. Israel's concern is blatant and transparent. It is concerned with preventing terrorist attacks NOTHING else.

Disarm the terrorists, take away the terrorist attacks, the IDF and Israeli government has no reason to concern itself with anything outside the 1949 to 1967 borders which it and the Arab League have already agreed everyone can live with as well as the Arab League conceding such a border is not realistic if terrorist attacks can continue from the West Bank or Gaza.

"These questions need answers. "

Absolutely. To me what is happening now is not the end. People said the same thing about Northern Ireland and yet the terrorists were disarmed and when that disarmament was achieved, peaceful dialogue then ensued.

I will say it again. If a way could be found to disarm the terror, peace is possible. Ironically if Fatah considers Hamas now its most serious enemy, it may choose to make serious signals to ISrael it will leave peacefully with it and prevent terror attacks from the West Bank which will in fact be the first stage of the Palestinian nation of the West Bank and enable Israeli politicians and military to justify pulling out since they can tell their people-we have good reason to believe we can pull out.

What happens with the Gaza is anyone's guess.

"Nobody seems to know what the goal of israel is, at least with the Arabs we know what they want."

Israel's agenda can't be more transparent. It is so blatantly transparen I am suprised you said that. In fact it is so blatantly transparent that the Arab League, Mr. Abbas, Hamas, Hezbollah, the very Arab nations you say do not understand what they want,know exactly what they want.

Its called being left alone to live in peace.

It is precisely because this is so well kown, Hamas, Hezbollah,PFLP, and countless other terrorist cells deliberately make statements to recognizing its desire for peace and being left alone, and taunt this desire by constantly calling on their people to wipe out Israel and kill Jews and Israel supporters world wide until its done. That is the point of the terror....to ridicule the notion Israel could be safe and be tolerated by its Arab neighbours.

[Bonam]

Great post, Rue.

[Rue]

Buffy since you are providing maps where are the ones with the sites from where the terrorist cell operates from?

[Rue]

Great post, Rue.

Thanks Bon. I appreciate your dialogue too.

I hope Andrew understands that many of us who support Israel want Palestinians to have their own nation and live in peace and we want the same thing for them as Israel and we do not think Israel is perfect in this conflict. Both Palestinians and Israelis are trapped by terror and both suffer equally and the pain of Palestinians and Israelis can not be pitted against one another as Figleaf does to make it sound like a sock fight or a pit bull fighting contest with a top and under dog. No one wins in this conflict but I suppose terrrorists as long as their violence can prevent peaceful dialogue.

[buffycat]

Buffy since you are providing maps where are the ones with the sites from where the terrorist cell operates from?

In the drawer next to those the Shin Bet and Mossad use to launch their own attacks

Seriously, you can look at any of the maps - take a look at these form B' TSelem:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

I think the major sticking stone here, especially wrt terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian factions is the Occupation and Illegal settlements on Palestinian lands by Israelis. House demolitions are also a factor along with the checkpoints and Jew only roads.

B'TSelem has info on that as well, as I am sure you are well aware Rue.

To be frank, I have always been more of a One State person myself. One Man, One Vote. A real democracy - where no one is a second class citizen - ie - Shepardic Jews and Israeli Arabs. I will maintain that Israel missed a golden opportunity, one that would have solved many problems and one that is simple beyond belief. Even if there would have been a few die hard nutbars on either side - overall it would be better for all involved - all PEOPLE - regardless of ethnicity or race. Sad when such opportunities are wasted.

[Figleaf]

Ummm, wasn't it rather Israel's incursion into Lebanon in search of their captured soldier that led to that tragic conflict? That's the sequence of events I observed in the media.

Umm.. that soldier didn't just randomly become captured by thin air you know. There was a chain of events:

First: Israel pulls out of Lebanon

Next: Hezbollah, no longer kept in check by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, gains more recruits and obtains more weapons, and increases in confidence

Next: Hezbollah does a raid inside Israel, killing several soldiers and capturing two

Next: Israel retaliates, seeking to dismantle or at least damage Hezbollah, which has demonstrated itself as a violent threat, and to hopefully find its missing soldiers

Saying that the conflict was "because of Israel's incursion" is an extreme fallacy.

Well, by your own description here, it appears it was not the cause you first cited -- arms buildup by hezbollah.

So then, was it the capture of the Israeli soldier? That doesn't really track, since the tragedy of the conflict were the deaths caused by bombs, rockets and bullets. Presumably, it is those who flung those bombs rockets and bullets that caused the tragic conflict. So, I disagree with your characterization. It seems to me that it is correct to say that the tragic conflict was caused by Israel's over-reaction to the capture of a soldier.

However, I will say that these questions of 'who started it' are often pure exercises in arbitrary line drawing and selective characterizations of events.

As for your question about law, I already answered. Unjust or unrealistic law should be changed. It would not be being changed "for Israel", because the issue of unjust or unrealistic international law applies to all countries.

Well, since:

1) international law as it stand is the creation of the states of the world; and

2) the only state on whose part there appears to be any purpose for making the change is Israel,

it certainly seems that such a change must be quite accurately described as 'for Israel'.

Considering point 1) above, does it occur to you that the rule against conquest might be a good and effective one?

[Figleaf]

Bonam, in reply to your question:

Also, perhaps you would like to reply to the issue of why you believe it's Israel that owes these people any land when in fact it was Jordan and Egypt that used that land to attack Israel, ...

The reason is that the actions of the states of Jordan or Egypt are not attachable to the Palestinian people.

If we start at the end of Ottoman rule and the begining of the British protectorate, it is difficult to see exactly what ethical premise allowed for the establishment of Israel on Palestinian lands at all. But if you accept that the world community had the authority to permit the establishment of Israel, then you must logically accept that it's proposed disposition of the remaining lands is authoritative too.

[Bonam]

1) international law as it stand is the creation of the states of the world

Which states? Furthermore, if you wish to debate law, please quote or provide a link to the particular law that you are attempting to invoke.

[Figleaf]

I hope Andrew understands that many of us who support Israel want Palestinians to have their own nation and live in peace and we want the same thing for them as Israel and we do not think Israel is perfect in this conflict.

Then you need to stop excusing Israel's efforts to thwart peace, and the transparent pretenses it uses to sustain the occupation.

Both Palestinians and Israelis are trapped by terror and both suffer equally ...

Bull shiite. The Palestinians live in camps, or in hemmed in villages without services. They must wait hours at checkpoints to travel even in 'their' territory. Their farms and lands are expropriated, their homes demolished, their water supplies confiscated. For you to say Israelis and Palestinians suffer 'equally' is a disgusting mischaracterization.

[Figleaf]

1) international law as it stand is the creation of the states of the world

Which states?

All states in community, dissenters notwithstanding.

Furthermore, if you wish to debate law, please quote or provide a link to the particular law that you are attempting to invoke.

Are you disputing it in fact, or only in principle?

[Bonam]

If we start at the end of Ottoman rule and the begining of the British protectorate, it is difficult to see exactly what ethical premise allowed for the establishment of Israel on Palestinian lands at all. But if you accept that the world community had the authority to permit the establishment of Israel, then you must logically accept that it's proposed disposition of the remaining lands is authoritative too.

Contrary to popular belief, Israel wasn't "established" by either Britain or the "world community". There was a UN partition plan, to split the area between a Jewish and an Arab state. Though the Jews were less than completely happy with the plan, they accepted it, but the Arabs rejected the plan, and invaded Israel. During this conflict, the 1948 war, Israel succesfully defended itself against attack by Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Yemen, and other non-national factions. The results of the conflict and subsequent negotiations are what "established" Israel, not the failed UN partition plan.

The reason is that the actions of the states of Jordan or Egypt are not attachable to the Palestinian people.

Actually, yes, they are. The Arabs in Gaza, under the jurisdiction of Egypt, participated in the attacks against Israel, as did the Arabs in the West Bank, under the jurisdiction of Jordan. Furthermore, the issue isn't to what state(s) you can "attach" the actions of the Palestinian people, but rather which state(s) wronged the Palestinian people.

I would say that the loss (by Jordan) of the West Bank land on which these people lived, and subsequent massacre of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and expulsion of Palestinian refugees was a bigger wrong to them than anything Israel has done. At the time, Jordan was accused of Genocide of the Palestinian people and the death of ~20,000 Palestinians, but since then this has mostly been forgotten and all the Palestinian problems blamed on Israel.

[Bonam]

Are you disputing it in fact, or only in principle?

Not disputing anything, I'm asking you to present the passage of international law that you are claiming that Israel is violating. Have you read this law first hand for yourself? If so, I would like you to provide the relevant section, with a link to a source.

[ScottSA]

... occupying conquered territory is not a violation of international law.

You put that in strange terms, but it's not the topic here anyway.

Claiming ownership of it is iffy, since 'right of conquest' is out of vogue,...

That puts it rather too mildly, as I think you know. It's illegal under international law as it stands today. Do I take you to mean, however, that there is no basis for Israel to claim part of the West Bank in a peace settlement?

As I recall sweal, you are or were involved in some way with domestic law. International law is a horse of a different color entirely. International law as it stands today is bound up in a few long-standing conventions like the GC, Law of the Sea etc, and built around the UN Charter, which is itself built around the concept of sovereignty as it applies to the Westphalian system. It was not always thus, nor will it be always thus. Even during this particular period of definition...and I use the LoN as well as the UN as part of the same period...territory switches hands all the time. Nations spring up, borders change, and nations even cease to exist.

In the case of the west bank, nothing that has happened to it since 1922 has any "basis" in international law, per se. It became part of the British mandate, was seized by Jordan, taken away from Jordan, which gave up its claim in the 80s, and now lies as a sort of legal no-man's land under Israeli occupation. It has never been a state, so sovereingty is not at issue until such time as it becomes a state. Israel, in other words, is not breaking international law by occupying it. Nor, arguably, would Israel be breaking international law by annexing it, if it chose to, for the following reasons:

1 The west bank is not a state and does not have claim to protection under sovereignty.

2 Jordan has already unilaterally annexed the west bank, so precedent is set.

So while you may flippantly spin off the term "illegal," in order for you to defend the charge under the assumptions of current international law, you have to implicate everyone who has ever had their grubby paws on the west bank since the Romans invaded Judea. In other words, if Israel is in violation of international law, so is Britain and Jordan.

[jbg]

And the Palestinians themselves, never having been a nation, have no idea how to run one, as can be seen by the fighting between their two factions (Hamas and Fatah) in the past week or two over political disagreements. How is Israel supposed to discuss terms of peace with people that are too busy throwing each other off buildings? While the Palestinians continue to be unable to follow a common unified policy, Israel is unable to negotiate effectively with them. What good does a ceasefire or peace agreement with a "Palestinian government" do if the rockets from various Palestinian militia groups just keep coming anyway (as they did during the last ceasefire)?

At this point, Israel WANTS to get rid of all relations, interactions, and responsibilities for Gaza and most of the West Bank. And they want to do it as fast as they can without jeopardizing their own security. The reason that these lands aren't completely independent of Israel already is not because of Israel, but because the Palestinians are just unable to unite, accept that Israel exists, and take the lands that are being offered to them.

Excellent post!!! You explained the problem that Israel has with "negotiation" better than I ever could.

[jbg]

Buffy since you are providing maps where are the ones with the sites from where the terrorist cell operates from?

You mean those of "freedom fighters"?

[Figleaf]

Are you disputing it in fact, or only in principle?

Not disputing anything, I'm asking you to present the passage of international law that you are claiming that Israel is violating.

Yes, but are you asking me to do this for any particular reason?

[Bonam]

If you want to claim something is against the law, you can at least show the law that you suppose that it is in violation of. Have you or have you not actually read the law which you claim that Israel is violating? Do you or do you not have a link to a source that lists this law?