START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Palestinian PM: Israeli Sanctions Starting to Bite


World  (tags: israel, middle-east, news, politics, palestine, world, society, interesting, conflict, 'CIVILLIBERTIES!' )

Cal
- 1116 days ago - news.yahoo.com
Israeli economic sanctions against the Palestinians, in retaliation for their bid to win world recognition of a state of Palestine, have started to bite: officials said



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Allan Yorkowitz (448)
Monday November 28, 2011, 5:23 pm
Palestinian PMs who are these people? When did the Palestinians not get their money? This is an article of anti-Israeli stupidity.
 

Cal Mendelsohn (1005)
Monday November 28, 2011, 5:41 pm
I HUMBLY DISAGREE. THE LAST PARAGRAPH IS A GOOD SUMMATION:

An Israeli government official said the suspension was intended to deter Abbas from bypassing peace talks. Netanyahu has offered to resume negotiations, but Abbas insists Israel must first halt all construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, areas the Palestinians claim for their state. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

I don't agree with all of the opinions expressed, but there is a fairly unbiased tone to the article in my opinion.
 

Joe Shults (37)
Monday November 28, 2011, 6:34 pm
Anti-Israeli article. Where were the complaints when the U.S. froze/sieged bank accounts of Iranians?
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday November 28, 2011, 7:09 pm
A separate issue is visible right at the top of the article: The public sector is a third of the Palestinian economy. That is not a charity, not an economy. The public/private balance must change drastically if Palestinians are to break their dependence on foreign aid.

On to the topic of the article itself, a few questions must be asked:

Does Israel have good reason to take severe action to stop the bid?
A successful Palestinian bid of statehood at the U.N. could mean serious trouble for Israel. It is an act of war under international law to support a rebel force against its government. However, much more leeway is given in supporting a state or forces loyal to a state in a conflict with another state. While de facto whatever an offended state decides constitutes an act of war is one, enough people support the de jure definitions to strongly influence Western politics. This means that, legally, if Hamas' militant branch gains status in the recognized Palestinian state similar to Hezbollah's in Lebanon, Iran could hand Hamas any arms short of a nuke, openly train the militia on-site, and really turn it into a branch of the Iranian military, and there would be a whole lot of voters telling their governments "It's legal. No interfering and no letting Israel interfere." On the legal side of things, they would be right. Never mind the war that would follow. I think the answer is "yes".

Is this an effective method to put pressure on the PA?
I think everyone here knows what happens when you have a government of locally questioned legitimacy which fails to pay the troops. I think everyone here is also aware that Arab heads of state do not hand over power and keep their freedom or, usually, their lives. Whether or not Palestinian leaders care about providing services to their people, this measure should produce results.

Are there problematic side-effects to this measure?
The article rightly noted that the Palestinian security force under the West Bank's leaders has been helpful in preventing attacks and escalation. That said, the same security-force may just be a bomb waiting to go off. Things will get better and they will get worse, and what happens if they get worse and Fatah calls for Intifada #3? The PA, as such, has never demonstrated that it holds anybody's loyalty. The parties in it do, so whatever the official mission of the PA may be and whatever the mission of that security-force may be, there is reason to believe the guns will be pointed whichever way the leaders of Fatah, current or future, decide, and that eventually they will probably want them pointed at Israel. On the other hand, there is the hope that there might never be Intifada #3 and the danger that this would unnecessarily set off the bomb before it is defused. On the legal end of things, I haven't checked the agreements but this may violate them. However, Fatah made no complaint when Israel withheld funds from Hamas so politically they may have little reasonable ground from which to argue. Of course, that has never stopped them. I think the answer to the big question here is a resounding and utterly useless "maybe".
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday November 28, 2011, 7:24 pm
I think the Palestinian demand noted at the bottom is very, very risky. That is the most charitable description I would give it.

Terrorism is the Palestinians' pressure-tactic in these negotiations. "Give us a good deal or we kill more people" tends to get that good deal. The settlements are Israel's pressure-tactic. "Give us what we want and accept what we offer now because your negotiating position gets weaker every day" usually works pretty well too. Getting rid of Israel's pressure-tactic would lead to one of two results:

First, it could lead to Israel choosing a new tactic, like violence. Israel is much, much better at that than Palestinians. I don't mean violence like the reprisals or the campaigns we have seen. I mean the actual use of a large second-tier fully industrialized military force. They could level cities in days, leaving no survivors.

Second, more likely, Israel would not choose a new tactic. The problem is that peace negotiated while one side exerts pressure and the other does not is also called "surrender". Why should the vastly more powerful side surrender to the weaker? Maintaining Palestinian pressure but eliminating Israeli pressure without eliminating Israel's ability to exert pressure would destroy any chance of Israel agreeing to any major Palestinian demands. The only way that this could possibly lead to Palestinians getting what they want is if the stalemate it starts end in military victory over Israel. Chances: Slim to nil. In the meantime, Palestinians would remain poor and stateless.

The reverse does not apply because the elimination of Palestinian pressure would be Israel's endgame victory. A permanent stalemate without Palestinian pressure (violent or political) on Israel is a win for Israel.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday November 28, 2011, 7:26 pm
It is extremely difficult to break out of the dependency on foreign aid since Israel controls the Palestinian economy, their imports, exports, their movement, etc. Kind of hard to join the part when you are under house arrest.

Holding back someone else's money which is not charity, it is money collected by Israel which belongs to the PA is criminal. Israel has no problem crying about being boycotted, but then turns around and withholds sums which are used to pay the PA security force (which Israel is pretty glad to have).
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday November 29, 2011, 3:21 pm
I typoed before: I meant "That is charity, not an economy." I have been looking for the agreement which set up the current system where Israel collects funds on behalf of the Palestinian authority and then transfers those funds, but could not find it. I cannot verify the legality or illegality of Israel's action under that agreement.

Israel does control Palestinian imports, exports, and to a great degree movement. That is what happens when a region's leaders maintain conflict with a vastly stronger power, and one which holds legal sovereignty over that region. At the same time, while dependence on foreign aid might not be breakable as long as mixed-use goods are forbidden in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (though I don't know how severe the restrictions are on the West Bank), seeking a better balance between the public and private sectors would be a good start.
 

Ge M. (218)
Tuesday November 29, 2011, 4:19 pm
Alisa, if the Abbas controlled authority gave a damn about the people they would be negotiating instead of smirking at the West and saying they want to and smiling at the Palestinians and saying that there is no way he will do so because Israel should be destroyed.

Israel exports for the Palestinians, they help Palestinians set up new businesses and advise on how to grow. The Israelis give free medical services to those who Hamas will allow out of Gaza (yep, it's Hamas that controls who goes in and out) and Hamas who stops everything.

So many people are blinkered about what actually happens or is truly interested in knowing the truth. Israel isn't perfect and tries to do what is right. However, Abbas broke the agreements arrived at in the second and third Oslo Accord and no-one has condemned that. The US warned them. However, Abbas wanted to be remembered as the one that got Palestine recognised by the UN even though it was completely ignoring any attempt to look for peace.

If Abbas and his cronies had not withheld money for themselves, their terrorist organisations and for arms, then they would have money to pay the civil servants.
 

patrica and edw jones (190)
Tuesday November 29, 2011, 6:48 pm
If the Palestininan Government really cared about the plight of its' people they would make a concerted effort to re start the peace process. No one can blame Israel for the bringing in these sanctions. They are well and truly fed up with coming up against a brick wall with the P.A.
 

james larkin (18)
Tuesday November 29, 2011, 11:09 pm
This Jewish-Arab thing has been going on since I as a teenager and they have still not found a solution and settlement and got on with life. I'm 73 years-old now and I'm thinking that both the Jews and the Arabs are not clever people cos they can't even make a deal together. All they have done is create a continuous nightmare of destruction, ruined the lives of their children and been a pain in the arse to the rest of the world.
 

Cam V. (417)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 1:20 am
With you all the way on this Patricia and Edw. All they have to do is quit lobbing missiles at Israel for starters.
 

Ge M. (218)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 2:02 am
James, the Arab thing made a statement back in 1948 when they rejected the 2 state agreement on the basis that they were going to kill the Jews and their attitude hasn't changed since.

What has happened is the thousands of years of anti-Semitism (&, even more importantly, the oil) making everyone support the Arab world and not the Israelis/Jews even though there are Palestinians and Arabs living side by side with the Jews in Israel along with many other religions and those of different ethnic origins.

I have yet to find out that any other Middle Eastern country takes in any refugees of any other ethnic origin. Even the Palestinians, about whom they make such a fuss, are not allowed to become residents in that country, they are restricted in the work that they are allowed to do, the education that they probably don't receive or even in the quality of health care. In fact, some Muslims call for the death of Palestinians and Kuwait threw them out. No-one said anything but can you imagine the outcry if Israel did?
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 4:14 am
@GM - Where has Mahmoud Abbas, since the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist formally in 1993 has he stated that he wants to destroy Israel?

I think that there is quite a bit of misinformation in your post.

Providing medical care to people of Occupied Palestinian Territory is an obligation the occupier has to provide under International law, specifically the Hauge Convention of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). Gaza, even though Israel has removed themselves from administering the lives of the local population, it still exerts "effective control", the extent of the military control (ie. controlling the borders, restricts movement, collective punishment, etc.) over the area. Even if Israel did not qualify as an occupier (which Israel insists is the case), under International Humanitarian law, they are still obligated to provide this under provisions " intended to protect civilians during an armed conflict, regardless of the status of the territory in which they live".

In regard to Abbas wanting to "to be remembered as the one that got Palestine recognised by the UN even though it was completely ignoring any attempt to look for peace", what other choice does he have. Even knowing that due to the power of the US over the UN Security Council would lead to failure, the purpose is to bring international attention to this crisis. All one has to do is to look the past history of the "peace process" to see if your statement has any validity. It does not hold up to scrunity as Israel had not negotiated with the attention to provide a solution which includes a viable Palestinian State. To accuse people of being "blinkered" and actually speak to the truth when you are posting this misinformation reflects or your wish to avoid "the truth".

@Patricia and Edw Jones - Everyone blames Israel for bringing sanctions against Israel. Israel and its supporters scream at the notion of people boycotting Israel, but supports the notion of witholding monies that are legally and rightfully due to the Palestinian Authority. To make it impossible for the PA to pay their civil servants, including the security that is provided for Israel only hurts the State of Israel and endangers its own population.

Stephen Brian - To withold these funds is not only a violation of that agreement, it is also in breach of international law. These funds are customs, border and income taxes collected on behalf of the PA was implemented under the 1993 Oslo Accords.

@Cam V. To believe that "All they have to do is quit lobbing missiles at Israel" ignores the simple fact that the PA, the legal representative of the Palestinian people has no control of Gaza at present. The PA governs the West Bank only, where no rockets are being lobbed over the fence. Israel itself has praised the security forces in the West Bank many times in their efforts on behalf of counter terrorism.

Again @ GM - Wouldn't you reject a partition where it benefited a minority of the people, giving them the majority of fertile land who only owned a very small percentage? No one would stand for that and to expect a population which was promised a Palestinian state prior to any commitments made to the Zionist organization is short signed.

Antisemitism has nothing to do with the original premise of the conflict. In fact, much of the Jewish people who populated this area prior to any Zionist ambitions lived in relative harmony with their surrounding "Arab" neighbours. Only when the "Arab" population realized correctly that the Zionist ambitions were to strip them of their land did the Arab uprise begin.

In many ME countries where Palestinians are refugees have a lot more to do with the Palestinians not wanting to become citizens of those countries, than these countries not allowing them to become citizens. Regarding Kuwait throwing out the Palestinian population, there certainly was an intrenational outcry of this "ethnic cleansing". I don't quite see how supporting Israel's treatment of these people based on the treatment they receive from other ME countries really stands for anything. The other ME countries you refer to are definitely not seen as shining examples of democracy and stewards of human rights. I think that argument is they type that is used when you don't have a solid foundation for your argument. It has nothing to do with anything, as most people don't support these ME regimes, except of course, the Western world, like the US, Britain and Canada.
 

CV M. (0)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 8:29 am
Signed and noted
 

TERRANCE N. (65)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 2:07 pm
Israel is nothing but an evil shadow not only in the middle east but in our own United States. Israel is nothing but an extension of the Rothschild Jewish Zionist entity that is responsible for people worldwide taking to the streets because of the huge theft by the bankster of trillions of dollars from governments all over the world.

The Palestinians are additional victims of these anti-human policies perpitrated by these international criminals. These criminals have now set it's sight on the government of Iran.

This Rothschild Jewish Zionist entity will not rest until they have enslaved humanity or humanity rise up and defeat this evil.
 

Anna Borsey (66)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 2:51 pm
"officials said Sunday that they won't be able to pay the next round of public sector salaries that support nearly one-third of Palestinians, and that the damage to a fragile economy is devastating."

Nearly 1/3 of ca 4 million Palestinians work in the public sector, apparently. This is certainly not a viable economy.

"The Palestinian Authority pays the wages of some 150,000 civil servants and members of the security forces. This includes tens of thousands of beneficiaries in Gaza who were pushed out of their jobs after the Hamas takeover but continue to receive salaries."

So, after Hamas was elected by a majority of Gaza voters, they sack some 150,000 Palestinian civil servants, but these are still being paid their wages by the Palestinian Authority.

"Critics say Israel isn't entitled to impound funds it collects on behalf of the Palestinians, some $100 million monthly of customs charges and other taxes which form nearly two-thirds of the local revenue of the West Bank-based government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas."

"An Israeli government official said the suspension was intended to deter Abbas from bypassing peace talks. Netanyahu has offered to resume negotiations, but Abbas insists Israel must first halt all construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, areas the Palestinians claim for their state. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005."

This is a ridiculous state of affairs. How can anyone even think that Palestine is a viable independent state? Furthermore, this "state" consists of three widely separate areas, none of which is geographically connected to any of the other two.

"The suspension comes at a time of a growing cash crisis in Abbas' Palestinian Authority, with foreign donors falling several hundred million dollars short of the nearly $1 billion in support sought this year. The Palestinians had a proposed budget of $3.2 billion for 2011, including $1.7 billion needed to cover the government payroll."

The Palestinian Authority is asking for US $1 billion in foreign aid just for this one year? Why should other nations keep paying for these people to pretend that they are a nation, a state? The Palestinians are most certainly the best paid refugees on the entire planet!

"The collection of the funds by Israel is part of interim peace agreements of the 1990s. Among the funds collected, for a fee paid by the Palestinians, are customs duties and value-added tax on imports that come through Israeli ports but end up in the Palestinian areas. Israel also turns over to the Palestinian Authority a significant portion of money held from the paychecks of Palestinians working in Israel."

So the nasty, wicked Israelis employ a great many Palestinians in Israel, and then hand over the bulk of income tax it deducts from the paychecks of these Israeli-employed Palestinians to the Palestinian Authority.

"In the long run, withholding the funds could seriously weaken the Palestinian Authority and contribute to its collapse, he said. In such a case, Israel would once again have to assume the costly responsibility for the welfare of nearly 4 million Palestinians."

Wicked, cruel Israel has in the past payed for the upkeep of these ca 4 million Palestinians and may well have to do so again, by funding their education, medical services, housing and many other things.

 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 2:52 pm
@AL - The Palestinians had several opportunities to achieve peace and didn't take them. Before leaving office Clinton and the Israeli PM offered Arafat, a known terrorist and head of the PLO a known terrorist organization 97% of what he asked for and he rejected it. They had their deal then and there. If the Palestinians truly wanted peace they'd sit down and negotiate with no preconditions. I don't agree with Israel's settlement policy but if they stop building what will the PA give in return? As it stand, nothing. They want something for nothing.
In 1948, the Jews got the best land because they worked it and made it the best land and had the Arabs not attacked, the Jews would have helped them turn their desert green. Israel would have provided valuable technology to help the Palestinians., Why wouldn't they? The Palestinians worst enemy is not the Israelis or the Jews. It's their own leaders who had the power to negotiate peace but instead blamed all Arab problems on Israel to cover their own inadequacies. They've been treating their people like crap for centuries and telling them if only Israel was gone their problems would be over. Know what else happened in 1948? Arab women got to vote for the first time. In Israel.

@Terrance - Seig Heil!!
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 3:23 pm
Dear Past Member:

With all due respect, continuing to perpetuate the myth of the generous offer doesn't make it true. In fact, members of the negotiating Israeli team themselves have commented that if they were Palestinian, they would never have accepted the Camp David offer and actually there really wasn't any offer to begin with.

The "consequence of Barak’s approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel’s position in the event of failure, and resolved not to let the Palestinians take advantage of one-sided compromises, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal. The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing, but orally conveyed." [Malley, Agha, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors]

"Barak refused to hold any substantive meeting with him at Camp David out of fear that the Palestinian leader would seek to put Israeli concessions on the record. " [Malley, Agha, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors]

What was discussed, which never led to any formal offer whatsoever, was a further bantustanization of the West Bank. At the time of the Camp David Peace Negotiations, Israel still had unfulfilled many obligations they failed to honour from the Oslo Accords. Israel had failed to turn over land which was to be turned over through the Accords and this now made the Palestinians attempt to renegotiate items which had already been agreed upon during the previous peace negotiations.

If you want to discuss this issue seriously based on you having some knowledge about the process, I would be happy to. I am not though going to waste my time responding to this kind of drivel. Anyone who can actually read, would come to a completely different conclusion from the picture you are attempting to paint. Arguing the issue based on what you have posted would be like making an argument that the would is not flat which you claiming that it is. Without basic understanding and acceptance of fundamental truths and facts, I have no interst in discussing this with you.
 

Ge M. (218)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 3:54 pm
Alisa, whilst both Arafat and Abbas have acknowledged the right of Israel to exist (& to be destroyed) they will not recognise it as a Jewish State as they wish to demand the right of return. Since Abbas has announced that it will not allow anyone to live in Gaza who is not a Muslim it is a case of we want everything. And, it is not as if there are not lots of Palestinians living in Israel already!

However, as the surrounding Muslim controlled countries are murdering and raping non-Muslims to either force a marriage or just for fun then destroying religious buildings. When a Jew wanted a right of return to Libya encouraged by the people saying that they wanted everyone to rebuild together, he was chased out of the country.

Then, of course, you ignore the abuses by the surrounding Muslim controlled countries to the Palestinian people. You ignore the abuses committed on those in Gaza by the terrorists. You ignore the ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel. The attacks on Israelis, especially the children.

Of course all of this is Israel's fault, we all know that, the country has no right to exist. Try looking at pictures of Arafat with the picture of Palestine on his sleeve, strangely it was the same shape as Israel. Abbas has something similar on TV.

Abbas broke the conditions of the 2nd & 3rd Oslo Accord. Abbas did so, not for the Palestinians but to make himself look good for history, maybe to have his name of a square or a street. Abbas was warned that he should not do it as there would be consequences but he ignored the warnings because he just didn't care, he only cared about himself. If you court disaster then you cannot blame Israel for doing what they had to do, blame Abbas. Abbas is OK, the people can suffer. Abbas lost out to Hamas with the Shalit exchange and he is angry and annoyed about that because he failed so badly.

As for suspending the building on Judea and Samaria, it was suspended for 10 months, why didn't Abbas comeback to the table? Because he was too busy smirking at the West who want to believe that he will negotiate and then smiles at his people and tells them in Arabic that he will not negotiate.

Alisa, you have a partial understanding and a warped view. No-one is interested in Israel's rights. Ask Jordan to take in the Palestinians as they are supposed to. Tell Jordan that the third class treatment that they currently receive is unacceptable. Tell the Muslim dominated countries with Palestinians to stop abusing them and allow them to become citizens of that country if they wish. Tell Kuwait that they had no right to eject the Palestinians. Tell these countries to stop brutalizing the non-Muslims living there, destroying/murdering them and making them into refugees. Ask them for compensation for these people.

 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 4:38 pm
@GM - There is no obligation, nor has there ever been on for the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. This is not part of the Oslo Accords, nor is it part of the Road Map to Peace, so how to this possibly fit into your argument. When the parameters for negotiation were set, you cannot have Israel unilaterally change the rules of the game. It is absurd to even by into this. This is just another roadblock Israel puts forward when it wants to continue to do what it has always done, expansionism.

I think that what other states do, don't belong in this conversation. My understanding was that this article was about Israel and Palestine, not about Egypt, Lebanon, etc. Why would this have to do with the withholding of funds which belong to Palestine? I am not going to argue statements that have no place in what is being discussed. A complete waste of time. That is like me saying admitting to a wrong, but defending it because someone is doing something worse. That makes no sense.

How do you know what I ignore or don't ignore in the world? To suggest that I am ignoring human rights abuses elsewhere because I am critical of Israel withholding funds owed to the Palestinian Authority (which is illegal under international law).

I don't understand this hostility when I am posting information which is widely available to anyone. Is this a usual Care2 trait, to make assumptions about people and what they support?

Where did I ignore rocket attacks? Where did I support them? This too has nothing to do with Israel withholding money that isn't theirs and is in breach of the terms of the Oslo Accords.

Now I really have to question, where did Abbas break conditions of "the 2nd & 3rd Oslo Accord". Where was there a third Oslo Accord. To my recollection there are two Agreements, one 1993 and one 1995. There was no Oslo 3, so I don't know what you are referring to.

With all due respect, I think that this explains the technique you use to rebut material which is contrary to your viewpoint. It it based on emotion, not on fact.

Abbas is actually a gift to Israel. He is more of an arm of Israel than the representative of the Palestinian people. The way you speak about going to the UN for membership is like he went to meet Netanyahu with a bomb strapped to his chest. He went through the diplomatic channels because Israel refuses to negotiate based on International laws and the parameters defined through previous negotiations. His ire with Abbas is due to Abbas's successful application to UNESCO.

I think you have no understanding of the conflict and haven't provided anything other those who only read Israeli propaganda sites. Nothing you have said is supported by any evidence.

I really do not wish to continue with this discussion with you. It seems that it would be a waste of time and certainly a waste of brain cells. You claim I am the one who has a partial understanding? I am not the one making up additional conditions in a non existent accord, like Oslo III.

Contrary to your statements of human rights violations in other ME countries which you claim I ignore (based on what???), I think that you really don't care much about those people and use them to argue for Israel. That is kind of deplorable to use people who are oppressed elsewhere to somehow try to justify Israel's actions.

As for the supposed ten month freeze on settlement building. The freeze was to include occupied territory. East Jerusalem, by law, is occupied territory. Israel continued to build in East Jerusalem during those ten months, thus there was no ten month settlement freeze.

I also see that you have thrown Jordan into it claiming that they are supposed to take the Palestinians. Forcing a sovereign country to take on an unwilling population wouldn't quite fulfill the definition of self determination. Also transferring people against their will is considered ethnic cleansing, a war crime. As for Kuwait, certainly Kuwait had no right to expel the Palestinian people. What does that have to do with this article and how are you even rationalizing your statement. Is it that because the people of Kuwait are Muslim, somehow it allows for Israel's occupation and marginalization of the Palestinian people. What does this have to do with anything regarding this conversation?????
 

Mary P. (157)
Wednesday November 30, 2011, 10:34 pm
Alisa Loring, excellent comments. Thank you for exposing the Truth of the situation. I believe in Truth
Will overcome Falsehood; the whole truth and nothing but the truth about zionist israel's Evil agendas and apartheid system are being exposed to the People of the world.

Gillian, give it up, Alisa has seen through your inner hatred and undying
Loyalty to the criminal zionist israeli regime that controls the good Jewish
People and the oppressed Palestinian people.

The Zionist Israeli Regime are Illegal Occupiers and should be stopped from
Anymore Illegal activities. Period.

Stephen Brian, " It is an act of war under international law to support a rebel force against its government."

You shoud tell that to America and its Allies: re their support to rebels in some of
The ME Countries. Btw Hamas are Freedom Fighters against the illegal
Occupying Force of Israel. They were democratically elected by the people.
 

Letitia N. (6)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 12:21 am
Netanyahu will never give Palestinians the peace they deserve. But maybe we can?
 

Parvez Zuberi (7)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 1:35 am
Israel is a rough Nation they are killing innocent people occupied their land blocked all accesses to get food and medicine and then they say lets talk peace we will not let you get state hood from united Nation and then they are not supposed to even complain what a great Israel nation which is supported by American GOVT for all their evil doings and then they talk about Human Rights and about crime against humanity and kill the head of states of Muslim countries if you are so concerned then why American Govt dose not take action against Israel You hypocrates
 

Lloyd H. (46)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 6:36 am
First off Israel has never negotiated in good faith, half of the Camp David Accords signed by Israel banned land grabs and more settlement building both of which Israel has done again and again. And I must admit that that having had the pleasure of working in a Kosher Jewish rest-home, where more than a few of the residents had camp tattoos, and talking with them the one thing that strikes me every time the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is just how like the dreaded and evil Jewish ghettos created by the Third Reich to contain and dehumanize Jews the Israelis have made and maintain Palestine. And just how like the Third Reich the Israelis react to the Palistinian are. Why should the Palistinians not be negotiating for peace as a State on equal ground with Israel.
 

carol k. (17)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 11:59 am
the Lord GOD Creator of ALL took a man and Created the Nation Israel to be His human representatives to the rest of the world and to send forth the Messiah to save Redeem the nations and those who would come to God through His Son Jesus. God BLESS Israel ever more The Lord Jesus Reigns.
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 12:04 pm
When Israel steals the Palestinians land and build settlements on it, would it be starnge to steal their customs and tax money ?
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 12:33 pm
" Recent Israeli governments have been held hostage by the ultra-Orthodox political parties that dictate the national agenda by demanding large economic subsidies and affordable housing within the settlements in exchange for their parliamentary support. These political parties and their constituency, the Haredi, are transforming the face of the nation by promoting an ideological inflexibility that opposes any peace deal with the Palestinians. " Ruth Dayan Newsweek 30/10/2011
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 2:58 pm
Hi Alisa :)

I would really have to see the relevant text of the treaty. Not being a state-government, the PA does not get to collect customs and such fees on its own authority. In fact the PA exists as a regional governing body under Israeli sovereignty, which arguably makes it a branch of the Israeli state-infrastructure to be funded or denied funding at the whim of the national government. That is usually how things go in cases where one group collects funds on behalf of another, except when otherwise bound by treaty ("Possession is nine tenths of the law").

Hi Mary,

In which countries do they actively support rebels? By "support rebels" I don't just mean with empty statements. Even support for the political force on whose side rebels fight is a grey area. I mean provision of weapons, funding, or training directly to rebels. As for whether Hamas is a rebel force: It was democratically elected to the PA legislature and not to the executive. When the PA president refused to hand over powers allotted to the executive (control over the security-forces), it engaged in a civil war against the PA security. Waging war against an entity normally voids one's membership in it, so as democratically elected as they may have been to the legislature, they no longer act through it. However, the whole matter of democratic election is moot. "Freedom fighter" is in fact a type of rebel, one which is motivated by a desire for some kind of freedom which is currently denied.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 3:08 pm
Carol K. I don't think that God intended for the State of Israel to oppress another population, demolish their homes, shoot at them, humiliate them, the list goes on. Just an observation, but I find that many "born again Christians" aka thumpers who accept Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, pontificate to anyone who will sit still long enough to listen to them (this includes plants, inanimate objects, just about anything), demonize every other religion except Judaism and their brand of Christianity (no Catholics allowed) come from a history of poor living, little morality, poor personal choices, addiction, criminality (you get my drift) and usually a lack of any post secondary education..

They accept this "finding Jesus" as the turning point in their life because

a) it offers instant forgiveness and
b) they usually no longer drink, smoke or drug so things tend to get better and actually makes sense.

Then they jump up on the pulpit and begin to tell everyone else how to live their lives, infer that everyone but them and their cult are going to heaven. They love the Jewish people and Israel, but don't realize that the state of Israel really will have no use for them once they get what they want.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 3:39 pm
I guerss if the Zionists want a few buses blown up, then this is the right way to go about it. Desperate people take desperate measures abd have little to lose.

And should the Zionists "uleash a second tier" industrialised war against the Palestinians, as someone mentioned as a possibilty, which would level whole cities leaving no survivors, then that will be the day when 10s or 1000s of innocent Jews all over the world would die along with inocent Palestinians.

But the Zionist regime wouldn't care. .
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 3:43 pm
Stephen Brian

("Possession is nine tenths of the law").

That maeks it all fine and dandy then, eh?
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 1, 2011, 3:53 pm
Stephen Brian - If you "really wish to see the relevant text of the treaty", then I suggest you start reading.

Are you inferring that since the PA is not a "state government", agreements made between the two countries are not enforceable and not valid???? They are enforceable and valid. If you want to allow Israel hold money which is Palestinian money and refuse to allow them to pay for the security which essentially provides security for Israel, then no more security.

How about Abbas quit, no more PA Authority? Israel can start fulfilling their obligations as occupier under international law. The holding of these funds is detrimental not only the Palesitnians, but also to the State of Israel, who as usual claims everything is about security, but continues to undermine the security of its citizens on a daily basis. If you think it out, the direction Israel is going towards is dangerous to Israel. You cannot occupy forever and you cannot treat them like second class citizens if you want to claim to be a democracy. So if there is no two state solution with a viable Palestinian state aside the State of Israel, what do you think is going to happen?

"That is usually how things go in cases where one group collects funds on behalf of another, except when otherwise bound by treaty ("Possession is nine tenths of the law"). " Well there is a treaty which covers this, so the whole argument you seem to be making to justify Israel's withholding of these funds is moot.
 

TERRANCE N. (65)
Friday December 2, 2011, 7:31 am
The criminal state of Israel has basically three choices with other choices having varying decrees of difference.1. Continue the current brutal occupation and land conviscation.2. A two state or one state solution giving the Palestinians their human rights in both cases.3 Escalating a genocidal war to drive the Palestinians totally from their land.

Israel has decided to follow the first course. The issue of demographics plays against this first course of action. Palestinians will eventually have majorities in the area. With Egypt electing the Muslim brother hood and other pro islamic regimes favorable to Hamas, this course will stimulate Muslims in Lebanon and other middle eastern countries to be more hostile toward Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Israel's inability to have a just settlement with the Palestinians or completely eliminate the Palestinian entity has put the area on a course to the possibility of a world war if Iran is attacked out right. Other kinds of indirect attacks in the form of sanctions and other distabilization tactics have already began. Iran has already responded with the sacking of the UK embassy. Israel's actions are plunging the world into a world war.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday December 2, 2011, 8:53 am
Hi John,

The value placed on possession in most laws or treaties alone does not make anything "dandy" as you put it on its own. However, under the Westphalian state-system, still the legal framework used today, a state must fulfill two criteria to be legal: First, it must establish that it has sufficient control over the territory which it claims that no entity which has expressed a full challenge to its existence can prevent its enforcement of laws and edicts which it enacts. Second, it must have sufficient international contact to engage in diplomacy effectively throughout the Westphalian state-system. In maintaining control over its territory in successful defensive war, Israel established the first, and with U.N.-membership as well as extensive direct contact with other states, it maintains the second.

As for Palestinians, the state which previously held sovereignty over the territory is assumed to challenge any new state unless it explicitly declares otherwise. No Palestinian organization has ever been able to hold its territory against anyone so none could become a state and claim the land. The last time the land held sovereignty was under biblical Judea. Palestinians certainly lived on it, but it was never theirs. When Israel ceases its claim to jurisdiction, or the PA is able to stop Israel from entering and taking control, let me know.

Hi Alisa,

I have searched for the relevant agreement and not found it. I did not see the specifics in the 1993 declaration of principles, nor Oslo II of 1995 (though I skimmed that one). If you can get me a link, please post it. If you can name the agreement, please let me know what to look for. (Then I suspect I could find it under Avalon Project or U.N. records.) I know that the "usually" comment is in itself moot, but it's all I have to go on until I can see the relevant text. The PA is not a state-government so there are no "two countries". There is one country and the residents of a region under its jurisdiction. As far as enforceability goes, who would enforce it and how? Enforcement measures are written into treaties, but again I cannot find the text. Also, the land has not been legally "occupied territory" under international law since the peace-treaty with Jordan was signed.

I understand that there is the issue of security. I think I addressed the problems in it (both ways) in my first post here.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 2, 2011, 10:54 am
I actually don't get your barrack room lawyer drift. You say:--

"a state must fulfill two criteria to be legal"

"First, it must establish that it has sufficient control over the territory which it claims that no entity which has expressed a full challenge to its existence can prevent its enforcement of laws and edicts which it enacts".

Right, so were Belgium, Poland, Norway and so on not "legal" after the German invasion in WW2?

"Second, it must have sufficient international contact to engage in diplomacy effectively throughout the Westphalian state-system. In maintaining control over its territory in successful defensive war, Israel established the first,"

You are wrong, of course, the Zionist Entity came into existence by its waging an offensive war. Does thsi make it not "legal"?
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Friday December 2, 2011, 11:30 am
Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities
Annex V
------------
Protocol Concerning Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities in the Sphere of Direct Taxation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The powers and responsibilities of the Civil Administration in the sphere of direct taxation regarding income tax on income accrued or derived in the West Bank will be transferred to and will be assumed by the Palestinian Authority.
Powers and responsibilities regarding property tax will continue to be exercised by the Civil Administration, though the income from this tax will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, after deducting the sums due to the municipalities.


The sphere of direct taxation shall include all matters dealt with in the laws, regulations and military orders listed in Appendix A, subject to the principles set forth below.


Without derogating from the principle of territoriality in taxation, i.e., the right of each tax administration to levy the income tax on income generated by economic activity in its area, and in accordance with the Declaration of Principles and with the Gaza-Jericho Agreement:


The Palestinian Authority will levy and collect income tax on Palestinians in respect of income accrued or derived in the West Bank outside the settlements and the military locations.




The Civil Administration will levy and collect income tax on Israelis in respect of income accrued or derived in the West Bank outside the settlements and the military locations by any business or service which accrues or derives an annual turnover in the West Bank outside the settlements and military locations exceeding $7,000 US.

The tax will be levied in accordance with the Palestinian tax code in force in the West Bank.

The Civil Administration will remit the tax collected to the Palestinian Authority.

For the purpose of subparagraph 3(b)(1) above and paragraph 5 below, changes in the legislation regarding the definition of "accrued or derived" income shall be made in the subcommittee established under paragraph 9.

In the event of disagreement regarding the implementation of this paragraph when the Palestinian Authority considers that a business or service should be taxed under this subparagraph, it may refer the matter to the above mentioned subcommittee.




For the purpose of this Annex, and for the purpose of the application of Appendix B to this Annex -


A corporation will be regarded as either a Palestinian or an Israeli if the majority of its shares which grant rights to distribution of profits are held by Palestinians or by Israelis, respectively.

For the purpose of subparagraph a. above, shares held by foreigners will be considered as shares held by Palestinians, except with regard to corporations operating within the settlements and military locations.


Income accruing to a partnership or derived by it will be attributed to its partners in accordance with their respective rights to profits and taxed in accordance with the provisions of this Annex.


With regard to corporations in which Israelis and Palestinians hold shares granting equal rights to distribution of profits, corporation tax will be levied equally on each shareholder by the relevant tax authority, in accordance with the principles of this Annex.


In the case of income accrued or derived by a foreigner, outside the settlements and the military locations, income tax will be levied and collected by the Palestinian Authority.




When an Israeli, including the military government and its Civil Administration, remits payment to a Palestinian and the payment is income taxable by the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli will deduct tax at source in accordance with the rules of the Palestinian tax code regarding the deduction at source by Palestinian payors and transfer it to the Civil Administration.


All activity relating to the assessment and collection of such deductions will be carried out by the Civil Administration or by Israel.


The Civil Administration will transfer such deductions to the Palestinian Authority in a manner to be agreed upon.


Procedures for implementation of the above mentioned arrangement for deduction at source will be determined by the Joint Economic Committee established under the Gaza-Jericho Agreement.

Pending the determination of the above mentioned procedures:


the present system of tax deduction at source from wages and salaries will continue to apply with regard to payments to Palestinian employees; and

until 31 December, 1994, tax will be deducted at source at the rate of 5% from other payments to Palestinians referred to in subparagraph a. above, subject to existing certificates concerning the reduction of deduction at source which shall continue to remain in force notwithstanding their initial date of expiration.
As of January 1, 1995, deduction at source from such payments will be effected only on the basis of the procedures to be agreed upon.




When a Palestinian remits payment to an Israeli, there will be no tax deduction at source.


The Palestinian Authority may transfer to the Civil Administration information regarding such payments where it considers that the income of the Israeli falls under paragraph 3(b) above, in order to assist the Civil Administration in levying tax on such income.


The Civil Administration will transfer to the Palestinian Authority, on a bimonthly basis, the sums collected from Israelis as advance payments in respect of taxes to be collected by the Civil Administration under paragraph 3(b) above.
Each tax year there will be a settling of accounts between the Civil Administration and the Palestinian Authority with regard to the final tax collected according to paragraph 3(b), taking into account the aforementioned advance payments and any necessary resultant tax refunds.


Foreigners who are subject to income tax levied by the Palestinian Authority will deduct tax at source in the same manner as Palestinians.


Until the Interim Agreement enters into force, Israel will transfer to the Palestinian Authority a sum equal to 75% of the income taxes collected by Israel from Palestinians employed in the settlements and military locations and in Israel.


The two sides will establish a joint committee composed of representatives of both tax authorities. This committee will discuss cases where one side wishes to tax businesses or services subject to the tax authority of the other side as well as cases where it is not clear by which side tax should be levied and all cases concerning double taxation.


Tax enforcement by the Palestinian Authority shall be in accordance with the principles set out in attached Appendix B.



Appendix A

Laws, Regulations and Military Orders in the Sphere of Direct Taxation


Income Tax Law, No. 25, 1964, except article 74(1), and as follows (article numbers relate to Hebrew version):
28(a)(4)-(5) - will apply to civil examinations (not to criminal investigations);
29b, 34a(a)(2), 34a(d), 49(3), 54(3), 57, 63(c)-(d), 64, 66(4) - will be subject to the principles regarding tax enforcement;
44(1) - will not apply to the military government, the Civil Administration and their employees;
21, 62, 63(c), Capter 16 - will be subject to the principles regarding the tax enforcement;

Regulations regarding Depreciation for Income Tax Purposes, No. 15, 1965

Regulations regarding Income Tax Deductions at Source from Salaries, No. 16, 1965

Regulations regarding Income Tax (Bookkeeping), 1988 (which adopted the regulations regarding Bookkeeping, 1985)

Regulations regarding Income Tax (Forms Required for Deductions at Source), 1987

Regulations regarding Income Tax (Determining Payments for Services or Goods and for Contracting as an Income), 1978

Regulations regarding Income Tax (Deduction at Source from Payments for Services or Goods and for Contracting), 1978

Regulations regarding Income Tax (Determining Payments for Construction Work and Shipping as an Income), 1986

Order regarding Encouragement of Capital Investment, No. 1342, 1991 - with regard to income tax exemptions; except for articles 26, 27 and 28
29 and 30 - will be subject to the principles regarding tax enforcement


Appendix B

Tax Enforcement


With regard to tax enforcement, the Palestinian Authority shall have the powers and responsibilities set out in this Appendix, except in relation to criminal offenses.


Gathering of Information

Concerning gathering of information, the Palestinian Authority shall be authorized to:


demand and seize documents, information and other relevant financial records from the assessee and any relevant third party.

require the appearance of any person at the taxation authorities' offices in the West Bank and require that person to provide all relevant reports and documents; and

enter any permanent place of business or residence of any person being assessed.


Tax Collection

For the purpose of tax collection, the Palestinian Authority shall be authorized to take the following measures:


attachments not relating to immovable property effected by the service of documents without requiring any physical action, such as bank accounts;

attachment of monies and chattels in the debtor's permanent place of business or residence only;

public auctions of the attached property or assets;

requests from the local courts in the West Bank to issue restraining orders prohibiting the debtor to travel abroad; and

requests from the local courts in the West Bank to issue civil imprisonment orders against tax defaulters.


Appeals Proceedings

The Palestinian Authority may establish a tax court in the West Bank for the purpose of hearing appeals with regard to assessments and bookkeeping. The details of this tax court shall be agreed in the CAC. Until the establishment of this tax court, such appeals shall continue to be heard by the local courts.


Scope


The Palestinian Authority shall not be authorized to take any enforcement measures against Israelis.

The Palestinian Authority shall not have the power to exercise enforcement measures affecting, directly or indirectly, the military government or its Civil Administration. The two sides will agree upon the mode and procedures regarding enforcement measures that require the cooperation of the military government and its Civil Administration, with a view to assisting the Palestinian Authority in carrying out its enforcement measures, subject to considerations of security and public order.

The use of force required for the exercise of tax enforcement measures shall be effected only by the Israeli authorities. Israel shall provide the Palestinian Authority with the necessary assistance in this regard.

The enforcement measures set out in this Appendix shall be exercised by the Palestinian Authority solely for tax collection and shall not be exercised for any other purpose.


Cooperation and Exchange of Information

Israel and the Palestinian Authority shall cooperate, including by exchanging information, to assist each other in the exercise of their powers and responsibilities with regard to tax enforcement.


Legislation Regarding Tax Enforcement

Subject to the principles set out in this Appendix, the Palestinian Authority is authorized, in addition to the measures included in the legislation set out in Appendix A, to take tax enforcement measures included in the following legislation:


Law regarding Collection of Public Monies, No. 6, 1952, except for articles 10, 11, 12A (appeals will be brought before the local courts), 14, 16(A) (with regard to payments owed by the Palestinian Authority)

Order regarding Amendment of the Collection of Public Monies Law, No. 113, 1967

Rules regarding Collection of Public Monies, 1988, except for articles 4(b)-(c), 22, 23

Rules regarding Collection of Public Monies (Imprisonment of a Debtor), 1991

Order regarding Taxes (Fine for Late Payment), No. 1296, 1990

Order regarding Rounding Off of Sums, No. 1164, 1986

Order regarding Tax Collection (Auxiliary Authorities) (Temporary Order), No. 1262, 1989 - with regard to permits and services provided by the Palestinian Authority
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Friday December 2, 2011, 11:34 am
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/peace/empower5.hml
 

Mary P. (157)
Friday December 2, 2011, 12:18 pm
Stephen,
If I remember correctly America and its Allies supplied weapons to the rebels
In Libya.

Laws and Israel !!! That's a joke as Israel breaks international laws all the time.
Israel is an illegal Occupier Period. They should not be rewarded but punished instead.
The world countries are now isolating israel; even america due to blackmail of suspension of financial support to presidential candidates by the zionist lobby, is Forced to pander to the whims and fancies
Of these ruthless and brutal zionist regime. The zionist regime should be kicked out of Israel
By the true torah jews then only will we see justice, unity and peace.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 2, 2011, 4:48 pm
Thank you Abdessalem for posting the information for Stephen B. You are a much kinder person than I, because I would have made him do his own homework.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday December 2, 2011, 6:28 pm
Hi Abdessalam :)

I tried following the link you gave and got a "Not Found" error. I even tried editing it for " .html " in case there was a type and still got nothing. As near as I can tell, there is no " /peace/" path on that site. I found history and politics, but no peace (strangely fitting).

Hi Mary,
Yes, that was an act of war against the Gaddafi's government in Libya. I thought I already mentioned here that the whole legal framework of occupied territory has not applied to the West Bank or Gaza Strip for decades. The only occupied territory which Israel holds is the Golan Heights and arguably part of Lebanon. Just to be clear, the legal status of "Occupied Territory" applies only to parts of one country which are under the control of another as a reality of an ongoing war. Since peace was declared between Israel and Egypt, and between Israel and Jordan, the wars ended and the borders simply moved. If you oppose those peace-treaties because you believe the Palestinians, who lacked the power to demand a seat at the negotiations, got shafted, then by all means say so. In negotiations, the powerful get what they want and the weak get screwed. That is what it means to have power. However, it is not your place, nor that of anyone here, to declare that the land is occupied, denying Israel's, Jordan's and Egypt's rights to make peace when they so chose. (Frankly this is an absurdly common claim here, given the usual Care2 poster's feelings about war.)

Also, if Zionist lobbyists held that much power, do you honestly believe that Palestinians would have done nearly as well as they have so far?

Hi Alisa,
I did look for the text, but it was your homework to do, not mine. You were the one who claimed that it violated the agreement and that is where the search for the text started.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 2, 2011, 7:43 pm
Why is it my oweness to provide you with material you want to examine. "I would really have to see the relevant text of the treaty." This is not some wild theory out there, it is pretty well known. I don't need to see it, I already read it. What kind of logic is that where I have to go and prove what I say, but you can essentially state anything just because you said it? I think not. If you don't know what is in the Oslo Accords, I would think that maybe you should learn them prior to commenting on them.

Since Abdesselam's link didn't work, why don't you use a search engine, like Google and look it up. That is what millions of Americans do each and everyday.

Palestinians have done well? I guess that are doing better than the people in Attawapiskat, but doing well is actually relative. I think having your houses demolished or not being able to visit your mother in the next village, or having to walk 20 km out of the way because it has been arbitrarily decided that the checkpoint doesn't signify "doing well" to me.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 2, 2011, 7:44 pm
Sorry, just noticed a typing error, I meant owness.
 

JOHNLEWIS HODDINOTT (77)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 1:38 am
EZEK 37:22

And i will make then one nation in the land upon the Mountins of Israel;
and one king shall be king of the all:
and they be no more two nations,
nither shall they be divided in to two
Kingdoms any more at all.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 2:15 am
"Also, if Zionist lobbyists held that much power, do you honestly believe that Palestinians would have done nearly as well as they have so far? "

Are you honestly trying to say that much of the USI political establishment is not beholden to Zionist lobbyists and interest groups?

As for the Palestinians doing well, at one point they were, before the Zionist Entity came and ruined things. They were well educated and sought after by other countries for nthe skills they had. Now, the Entity, as a matter of policy, is trying to stifle any sort of life in Palestine for the indigenous population, especially for the children. Sanctions on Gaza will lead to stunted growth, lower IQ and educational achievements. This is in addition to the restrictions on learning abroad. They know what they are doing - "We're putting them on a diet" said Ariel Sharon's advisor. A continuation of the idea that they would be hewers of wood and the rest.
 

TERRANCE N. (65)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 5:05 am
Brian, your position on Israel/Palestine can be summed up in three words; might makes right. You state, " Palestinians, who lack the power to demand a seat at the negotiating table". In other words, because the Palestinians don't have big, dangerous, or genocidal weapons that Israel has, they don't deserve a homeland. taken further; slavery was justified because the slave master had more powerful weapons. The native American genocide is correct because the indians were powerless. The Germans were justified in killing 6 million Jews because hitler had the power. Don't you see where the fallacy of your position leads?

The reason Christ, Gandhi, and ML King, Mandela came to prominence is an exact contradiction to your "might is right" premise. Now we have the international spread of the basically non-violent Arab spring and occupy wall street. Humanity is sick and tired of the war mongers not just in Israel and the US, but in the world in general. If Israel think it can continue a status quo of brutal war criminal occupation, land theft, and genocide, you are in for a rude wakening.

Humans are hardwired to react to oppression with resistence. It is shown that death is preferrible to oppression or slavery. The main issue is not only a homeland for the Palestinians. A homeland is a means to the end of freedom, justice, and dignity. If you were in the position of the Palestinians wouldn't you be fighting for the same thing? Would you agree to occupation, oppression, exploitation, discrimination, and theft of your resources?

John Lewis-try reading the whole bible. Not just the part that suits your inclination to steal land which doesn't belong to you.
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 5:55 am
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Alisa because you have done so within the last week
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 6:04 am
Stephen
Why don't you pay some effort if you think you may find something that justifies the Zionist entity theft of Palestinians money the same way it is stealing their land?

Try again and again. If you fail,let me know. I might help you then.
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Saturday December 3, 2011, 6:24 am
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to TERRANCE because you have done so within the last week.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday December 4, 2011, 10:44 am
Hi Alisa,

"Pretty well known" really doesn't cut it here. It used to be "pretty well known" that the Earth was flat. I have seen a lot of things here that are "pretty well known" and, upon verfication, turned out to be no more true than that. When you cannot provide documentation for your point, that detracts from your credibility and does not add to it.

Hi Abdessalam :)
Thank you for posting the relevant text. It includes an agreement that Israel would provide the funding to the PA and has no provision in it for withholding the funds. However, it also says explicitly that the PA has no authority to enforce any demand for the funds as it cannot enforce its tax-law upon Israelis, and the Israeli government is generally considered an Israeli organization. I would like to look further into the matter, but for now I will agree with you and Alisa that withholding funds is certainly in violation of the original agreement. the only grey area is whether, in the absence of an enforcement-mechanism, the agreement actually constitutes any sort of law. I don't know why I got a "not found" error earlier.

There are three things I found which implied it could be justified: First, Israel holds sovereignty over the territory. Any legal governing body there is then technically considered a branch of the Israeli state-structure, including the PA. It came into legal existence in an agreement with Israel and not on its own authority for a reason. The second thing I found is that there is nothing in any international law which requires that a country assist any entity which it believes may pose a security-risk to itself. National self-defense always comes first. If Israel believes that the behaviour of the PA or the reasonably expected future behaviour of its security-forces will threaten Israeli security, generally nothing under any treaty can demand that it fund them. Third, the normal penalty for breach of a treaty is the relief of the other side's requirement to abide by it. If Israel believes that the PA has violated the agreement under which it is required to continue funding to such a degree that withholding funds is justified, then it would normally have a right to do so. In fact, such power is usually the reason one entity would collect funds on behalf of another, going all the way back to the British government's granting of the House of Commons sole jurisdiction over taxation, giving them some power over the king.

Hi John D.
Yes, I do say that the US (I guess that's what you meant by "USI") is not beholden to Zionist interests. The two countries are cultural and ideological allies. You would, presumably, stick your neck out to help a friend or even just someone you like for whatever characteristics that person has. Does that make you beholden to him?

How many universities were there in the Gaza Strip and West Bank before 1967? When did Palestinians start writing their own laws? They're better-educated and, while I realize this might shock you, more free now than they ever were.

Hi Terrence,

That's not exactly my position. Mine is closer to "Might makes legal" under international law, but unlike many posters here, I don't always assume that international law is "right". There are two reasons why it does, and why it should: First, the objective of international law is to prevent war. The most effective ways to do this are by legitimizing the status quo and by giving those who would clearly win the war what they want before guns are drawn, so as to avoid escalation. Second, the central rule of any legal code is that it must be enforced. Who would enforce it against the mighty? Who could? Making rules that do not get enforced undermines the whole legal structure, turning it from a set of "This is how things will work" statements to a pile of "Wouldn't it be nice if people did this" ones. Do you see the difference?

Of course this leads to prohibitions on moral behaviour, particularly when war is justified. the problem with trying to make international universal laws that support morality, though, is that different people have different ideas of what is moral. When you bring in the enforcement-side of things, and its need for the support of the mighty, you can see whose views of morality would decide the law. It would turn from a set of blind (in the "justice is blind" sense) conventions by which countries could interact into in a set of rules whereby the most powerful forces would try to enforce their cultures upon each other and upon others. There are a lot of problems with this, and I really don't have time to go into them right now, but if you want then I can do so later.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 4, 2011, 2:42 pm
Why would I have to provide you with proof of something I knew was correct. You didn't offer anything to refute it by posting something saying the PLO agreement stated blah, blah, blah...to make your point. It seems you feel that I have to provide more material to support my argument, yet when you disagree with my point or doubt it, you are providing nothing except your word. i don't think that is how it works Stephen. Since you were the one disagreeing with my statement, you should be the one providing the supportive material to back up what you are stating. Abdessalem was kind enough to post what you were looking for, thus the whole point is moot.

As for your Israel and US ally, buddy reference, think of it this way, good friends don't allow other friends to drink and drive.
 

TERRANCE N. (65)
Sunday December 4, 2011, 2:52 pm
Stephen, I appreciate your courteous and thoughtful response. It's obvious that you are not a part of the Israeli Knesset or any other part of the Israeli adminstration (because you argue like a descent human being) as opposed to those who appear to be adding fuel to the fire of an already counter productive policy of occupation tinged with racial and religious bigotry. I speak specifically of Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians must recognize Ilsrael as a Jewish state and the threats to attack Irans nuclear facilities.

You ""might makes law" analogy as opposed to "might makes right" in my opinion, though interesting, is a distinction without a difference. I understand that this reality is not your personal preference but the way things work in the international area. I appreciate this enlightenment. I hardly agree however that major conflicts are prevented by catering to the powerful. Maybe it does in the Israel/Palestinian situation, but in general catering to the militarily and politically powerful only rewards a behavior of further escalation of tensions. It can easily be said that equalizing the military equation between the two sides can also prevent an escalation. I am also leerie of this argument. Making both entities more peaceful is better road in my opinion.

The world needs more thinkers in the philosophy of Ghandi, Einstein, ML King, Mandela, Lennon, etc,.The Netanyahu's, Leibermann's, Clinton's, and Obama's are incapable of solving these problems because they are serving the vested interest of materialism, greed, and war. Now these same warmongering profiteers are pushing for a conflict with Iran to sacrifice the lives of Israeli's, Iranians, and possibly Americans as they urge us to fight for the love of our country but in reality the fight is for the benefit of a few greedy bastards.

 

Afeefah Ally (0)
Monday December 5, 2011, 3:44 pm
How could you punish a whole population because they want their land back? Its sad that much of the world remains silent despite the atrocities that the Palestinians face at the hands of Israel who NEVER are held into account for their actions.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday December 7, 2011, 1:27 pm
Hi Alisa,

In the absence of an agreement forbidding them from doing so, parties are permitted to do as they please. For example, can you find me the text of international law which states that the U.S. is premitted to tax of its citizens progressively by income? There isn't one, but by default it is permitted to do so. Likewise by default, the Israeli government is allowed to deny funding to governing bodies under its sovereignty and do as it pleases with wealth in its possession. The discussion of who must provide documentation actually gets a little deeper and goes into the subtleties of Occam's Razer, but I think that should suffice.

Hi Terrance,

International law does not entirely cater to the powerful as it is still at least technically a blind system. It does establish casus belli and there is at least in theory a pact of non-aggression between all member-states of the U.N. and even arguably mutual defense as governed by the Security Council. The problem with having international law try to level the playing field is well-illustrated by the failure of this mutual-defense pact. To paraphrase Mao (who had a grasp of politics and strategy, though not economics), power flows from the barrel of a gun and not ink on paper. International law cannot level the playing field. It can only formalize and let everyone know what behaviour will lead to what responses. (For example, there is the whole system regarding reprisals for failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions, the demand for intervention in the Convention on Genocide, and the agreements regarding international trade and fines.)

Appeasement of the powerful and legitimizing their behaviour does classically lead to them getting more demanding. However, as long as a blind system is followed, there will be limits on what is condoned. We are very, very fortunate today that the most powerful countries on Earth are also those where voters care about following international law. This allows them to constrain the behaviour of the mighty through their internal politics.
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday December 7, 2011, 3:17 pm
Stephen B. - if you want to find excuses through little clever arguments, you go ahead. No skin off of my nose. Israel's is not going to going down well in history. You can try and dress it up and put bow on it,, but it still is what it is and no wriggling on the hook, and apologists hasbara is going to change that.
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday December 7, 2011, 3:33 pm
Stephen B - Just wondering if your being groomed as the next Alan Dershowitz when he retires? You could be Israel's next lawyer.
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday December 7, 2011, 3:45 pm
But would they accept him, as he seems to have learned law in the barrack room?
 

Mary P. (157)
Wednesday December 7, 2011, 6:49 pm
Lol !! Good one John !
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 12:13 pm
Stephen
I knew from the begining that you were looking for something to justify the Zionists deeds but I decided to post the full text of the agreement to catch you naked before people on this post.This is however what happened.
As a person who shared drafting international agreements,I assur you that your point of view is incorrect. Yes " It includes an agreement that Israel would provide the funding to the PA and has no provision in it for withholding the funds." as you mentioned but at the same time it has no provision that allows Israel to withhold the funds because it is Palestinians money.
According to the " Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements Article VI:
2. Immediately after the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area, with the view to promoting economic development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, authority will be transferred to the Palestinians in the following spheres: education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation and tourism.
 

Mary P. (157)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 12:26 pm
Palestine is sovereign territory. In 1987, Law Professor Francis Boyle drafted its Declaration of Independence. On November 15, 1988, the Palestine National Council (PNC) adopted it, affirming Palestinian statehood.

Nonetheless, Israel's illegal occupation continues. Gaza's under siege. Israeli forces attack repeatedly. Deaths and injuries result. Dozens of weekly West Bank incursions harass Palestinians ruthlessly. Numerous arrests follow. Innocent civilians are imprisoned, including children young as 10.

Peaceful protesters are assaulted violently. Settlement expansions continue on stolen land. Dispossessed Palestinians have no redress. Police state repression terrorizes millions of people. World leaders yawn and do nothing.

Last April in Cairo, Hamas and Fatah leaders proclaimed unity. Palestinians hoped it signaled rapprochement between the two sides.

Both agreed to form a transitional government soon. The two delegations, headed by Fatah President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, discussed security issues and ways to coordinate forces cooperatively. They also agreed to hold presidential and legislative elections within a year.

Despite reservations on both sides, signing ceremony comments signaled hope. Abbas suggested turning a page, saying:

"Four black years have affected the interests of Palestinians. Now we meet to assert a unified will. Israel is using the Palestinian reconciliation as an excuse to evade (peace. It) must choose between peace and settlement."

Based on his long collaborationist history with Israel, his commitments need to be tested. Saying and doing often differ. The jury so far is out.

For his part, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said:

"Hamas was ready to pay any price for internal Palestinian reconciliation. The only battle of the Palestinians is against Israel. Our aim is to establish a free and completely sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza strip, whose capital is Jerusalem, without any settlers and without giving up a single inch of land and without giving up on the right of return."

At the time, Netanyahu denounced unity, saying:

"What happened....in Cairo is a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism."

In fact, Israel is the region's leading purveyor of state terrorism by far. Moreover, Netanyahu, other Israeli officials, and previous ones spurn peace. Why else would decades of negotiations go nowhere.

Hopefully, Hamas and Fatah agreements will hold. On November 24, the International Middle East Media Center headlined, "Abbas, Mashal, Meet in Cairo, Affirm National Unity," saying:

Both sides affirmed "Palestinian national unity and partnership. An understanding was reached to hold legislative and presidential elections in May 2012.? Abbas said:

"I am pleased to inform the Arab and Islamic Nations that we started a new phase of partnership to best serve the Palestinian people. We deal with each other as partners."

"We have unified responsibility towards our people and our cause. We discussed the reconciliation agreement in detail, and we are pleased to say that were no disagreements on any issue."

It remains to be seen if he means it.

Mashal also signaled hope, saying:

"I want to assure everybody, these are not just words. I want everybody to wait and see the real outcome on the ground. We hope that our people, all factions, will help us in serving our cause."

Another meeting is planned for December 22 to affirm agenda details.

In response, Israeli officials condemned the agreement, calling Hamas (Palestine's legitimately elected government) a terrorist organization.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said:

"The foreign ministry is examining the possibility of Israel pulling out of the Gaza Strip in terms of infrastructure."

In other words, Israel may cut off electricity, water, and other essentials in retaliation. Already, besieged Gazans lack enough food, medicines, and other basic supplies. Everything is rationed. Shortages cause harm.

Rolling blackouts happen daily for hours. Normality's denied. So are Palestinian tax revenues PA leaders need to function. A senior Israeli official said if Hamas and Fatah conclude unity, "it would make a transfer of funds impossible."

In recent weeks, Israel escalated Gaza attacks. Potentially they signal more war. In mid-November, Israel's military commander Benny Gantz warned about another large-scale operation. Palestinians take the threat seriously.

On November 27, Haaretz writer Amir Oren headlined, "Egypt turmoil may prompt Israel to strike Gaza," saying:

The possibility of a post-election Islamist Egypt raised concerns. Why isn't clear as Israel and Western nations have close ties to others. In fact, Israel's using it as a pretext perhaps to unleash what's already planned.

Timing may depend on an "intelligence assessment of likely targets, the weather, the readiness levels of regular and reserve troops and, last but not least, the situation in Egypt" if new leaders are anti-Israeli.

These and other factors affect new conflict strategies. "During Gantz's nine months as chief of staff, plans for new operations have been drawn, old plans have been revised and numerous battle-oriented discussions have been staged."

Events on the ground will dictate decisions. Preemption's a strong possibility. Israel favors it, claiming it's responding defensively when, in fact, it's committing lawless aggression - especially against soft targets like Gaza.

Meanwhile, various UK media reports suggest Israel (with US logistical support) may attack Iranian nuclear sites by yearend or in early 2012. Britain's Foreign Office believes it could come "sooner rather than later," possibly by Christmas.

In mid-November, Washington held discussions with Israel to discuss sanctions. Whether or not possible belligerence was considered isn't known. Both countries bogusly call Iran a threat. Israel wants a regional rival eliminated. America wants client states throughout the Middle East to solidify its unchallenged dominance.

Attacking Iran and/or Syria involves huge risks. The potential for general war is real. Its dangers are frightening. In her 1962 book titled, "The Guns of August," Barbara Tuchman discussed events leading to WW I and its early weeks.

Once started, things spun out of control with cataclysmic consequences, including over 20 million dead, many millions wounded, and a generation of young men lost before it ended.

The lesson is be careful what you wish for. You may get more than you bargained for. A century ago, no mass destruction weapons existed. Today's can cause nuclear winter, including by accident.

As a result, igniting another global conflict should give officials pause about the consequences for potential gains. It should also make them consider what's next if their calculations are wrong. Nonetheless, those in charge often go for broke, and let the devil take the hindmost.

Iran's military chief of staff, General Hassan Firouzabadi, addressed possible aggression on the country, vowing strong retaliation. General Yadollah Javani specifically warned Tel Aviv, saying:

"If Israel fires a missile towards our nuclear or critical facilities, it should know that every inch of Israel, including its nuclear centers, are a target for our missiles (to strike), and we have this capacity today."

Turkey was also warned. General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh said if Iran is attacked, NATO's (offensive) missile shield there will be struck first.

Subduing Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya didn't go as planned, despite rhetoric claiming so. Imagine the greater challenge Syria and Iran pose, given their strength and allies.

Whether it's enough to give militarists pause is uncertain. So far, it doesn't seem so. Millions tremble at what may be coming. Everyone should!

Some Good News

With so little, savor it!

Since its founding in July 2005, the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign convinced dozens of businesses to leave Israel.

Germany's Deutsche Bank divested from Elbit earlier, a company involved in building Israel's Separation Wall. Norway's government ended operations with an Israeli security firm, and Harvard divested from Israeli companies.

In late November, French banking giant BNP Paribas announced it was pulling out entirely. Claiming financial reasons masked the truth.

Pressure forced them out. PNB Paribas has many global operations, including in neighboring countries. Moreover, its Israeli one financed large French companies doing business in Israel.

Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz tried, but failed, to retain them. Word is both sides exchanged harsh words.

Maybe other large companies will follow PNB Paribas. Some day perhaps they'll all stop doing business with an apartheid state worse than South Africa's, much worse.

 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 12:32 pm
Any way,I am not surprised because Israel rarely , if never at all,respect what negotiation has achieved.Every time negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is suspended then resumed , the Zionist entity insists to restart from point zero. A game that Israel is playing to gain time to steal more land and change the demographic situation in the occupied land. This trick is quiet clear and the whole world knows about it. Israel is also naked before the whole world and isolated. When Panetta,US secretary of defence,said last week that Israel must "get to damn ( negotiations ) table, he knew very well that this means that Israel , in order to avoid the increasing isolation must stop building settlements on the Palestinians land including east Jerusalem as this is a must to resume negotiations.
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 12:39 pm
Thank you Mary. Hold on . We will continue telling the truth and enlightening who don't know.We will continue on Care2 despite all the tricks and obstacles. A green star on its way to you.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 2:36 pm
Contrary to popular belief, I am not here to "win" any arguments. I am here to learn and teach. I see one side of a debate presented and wish to learn if counterarguments from the other side can be satisfactorily addressed. I also wish to present those counterarguments to people who show no sign of being aware of them. I am sure it would surprise quite a few people here to find out that on another board I often find myself siding with Arabs and Muslims in general for exactly the same reason.

Hi Abdessalam :)

I understand that the Palestinian Authority does handle direct taxation of Palestinians within the territories. The funds in question, however, are not those taxes. Being in Israeli possession, they are definitively not those of which the PA has taken responsibility for collecting. I understand that the treaty's lack of provision for withholding funds implies that it is expected that Israel hand them over, and I no longer question whether the withholding of funds violates the agreement. The points I raised before were not about that: What I questioned was:
1. whether the agreement was legally binding in any way upon Israel. This is not an international treaty, but an agreement between a sovereign state and a regional governing body under its authority.
2. whether the requirement under the agreement was superseded by preexisting treaties and customary law. The customary law in question is that states may legally place their own security above any existing treaty.
and
3. whether the agreement was already so badly violated that it no longer held sufficient weight. The customary penalty for violation of an agreement is the release of the other side's obligations under it. While the treaty has not been violated so badly as to outright discarded, could Israel reasonably conclude that there are partial violations on the Palestinian end which justify this partial violation on the Israeli end?

Before you talk about "catching you [me] naked", please ensure that your comments actually address the question. Frankly, in most civilized forums I have seen, it looks like the situation was quite the opposite. Of course, Care2 can be among the least civilized sites of discussion I have ever encountered.

Hi Alisa,

No counterargument? Is it because you cannot find a logically consistent way to continue supporting your position despite its absurd implications? That's what it looks like to me. Before you talk about me "wriggling on the hook", try funding a hook. You don't seem to have one. As for whether or not I am being groomed as the next Alan Dershowitz, no I am not. While I do have a better grasp of international law than frankly anyone I have seen on Care2, I would not call myself qualified as a lawyer. Consider what that says about Care2.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 2:58 pm
Hi Mary,

http://familyguydirect.com/watch.php?episode=218
Is Petoria stolen land now? His declaration of independence held about as much weight as Boyle's. If the land is not stolen, then a lot of the other accusations make no sense.

As for why there is no peace, read my post at X:03 (hour depends on your timezone) on this thread:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/602821732/2952563
It's not just the classic "Israel is mean" which you assumed.

Israel "pulling out of Gaza in terms of infrastructure" does not mean cutting off supplies or electricity. It means ceasing to provide them. Before angering Israel, maybe the PA should stop depending on it so much that it, and you, take its enormous aid for granted. The natural state is one of absolute and total poverty, not wealth equal to that of one's neighbors.

They call Iran a threat because it has a military nuclear program and aids terrorists (Hezbollah and Hamas), using them as proxy-armies. The usual arguments against the likelihood of a state handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists do not apply when the terrorists and the state are ideological allies.

Much of the article you posted is flawed.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 4:11 pm
Stephen:

I am not going to counterargue this that are part of the factual historical record, nor am I going to nitpick with you while you try to distort international law. I take as international law, what has been ruled, what has already been applied and what Israel and Palestine have agreed upon. Why am I going to waste me time arguing and tearing it all apart. I am going with the international consensus which includes EVERY country in the world that the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are occupied territory.

I am glad you have no issues with self esteem, but I find people who usually have to claim that they are superior to everyone else on a topic are usually woefully insecure and often off the mark. If you feel you are the King of International law, so be it.

I find it much more disturbing that you are willing to nitpick your interpretation of already applied International law to defend some pretty oppressive tactics by a government which claims to be a democracy, yet seems to be bordering on an Apartheid state. It seems that you do this just to win the argument with no thought to the miserable lives and hopeless existance of the Palestinian people.

I don't need to be an expert on anything to know that it is morally repugnant what has been done to these people. You can claim they rejected the UN partition of 1947, who in their right mind would have accepted it? You can claim security of the State of Israel, when all I see is that if people weren't ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homes and occupied for over four decades, perhaps there wouldn't be any terroristm. Terrorism isn't just something rogue militants take part in, there is plenty of state sanctioned terrorism and Israel is one of the States guilty of it.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 4:13 pm
Abdessalem - don't even bother responding to this. If someone who claims to know all the facts doesn't see something wrong with this picture, there is absolutely no sense in even addressing it.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 4:17 pm
I think things will get interesting now that Palestine has membership to UNESCO. Let's just see what happens now.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 4:18 pm
I just saw this and cannot believe that someone would actually post this. ". I am here to learn and teach". Unbelieveable about the teaching part.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 4:30 pm
Sorry Abdessalem, after telling you not to answer King Stephen, I just have to address the patronizing, condescending post on the taxation issue?

If anyone wants to know what the funds are that Israel collects on behalf of the PA rather than relying on Stephen Brian's understanding of what he thinks they are, here from people who actually are considered maybe biased (towards Israel, at least WaPo and NYTimes), but credible. I am sure Stephen Brian considers himself more qualified than these mere mortals. Maybe he should write them an op-ed and disagree with Ethan Bronner from the Times. Let's see how that flies.

"Israel transfers about $100m (£64m) in tax and tariff monies collected on behalf of the Palestinians each month to the Palestinian Authority (PA).("Israel to release Palestinian tax money", BBC, Nov. 30, 2011)

The tax revenue includes customs duties Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority for imports coming through Israeli ports, value-added taxes levied on large Palestinian purchases of Israeli goods and excise taxes on fuel sold to the Palestinians. The funds are transferred under an economic agreement that followed the 1993 Oslo accord between Israel and the Palestinians. ("Israel to release withheld tax funds to Palestinians", Washington Post, Nov. 30, 2011)

"The transfer of about $100 million a month to the Palestinian Authority is required under the 1994 portion of the Oslo agreement that formalized relations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The money is made up of equal parts customs duties that Israel collects for Palestinians on foreign goods that arrive through Israeli ports, value-added taxes on major Palestinian purchases of Israeli goods and excise taxes on Israeli fuel bought by the Palestinians. A far smaller transfer is made monthly in the other direction as well, on goods bought by Israeli businesses in the West Bank." (Palestinians to Receive Payments, Israel Says, NY Times, Nov. 30, 2011)
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 5:09 pm
"They call Iran a threat because it has a military nuclear program and aids terrorists (Hezbollah and Hamas), using them as proxy-armies"

Do they now, Stephen B? So what do they call the nuclear armed USI, which aids terrorists such as those who tried to topple a democratically elected president in Venezuela and did topple one in Chile as well as myriad other attempts, successful?
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 8, 2011, 7:28 pm
Stephen B. - "Consider what that says about Care2."

I am wondering what is that supposed to mean and if you feel that it is beneath you, why are you even here? It certainly speaks volumes about you, if you need to visit a site that you obviously hold in contempt.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 9, 2011, 1:05 am
Alisa, they used to say that about the Guardian talkboards too, that they were anti-semitic, full of fundies and the rest and that the people posting were ignorant/deluded. And all because there were a few who wouldn't toe the Zionist line.

And I didn't want to comment on it before, but Stephen's pomposity is beguinning to choke me.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 9, 2011, 3:07 am
John - In my opinion, pomposity is far too mild of a word to use.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday December 9, 2011, 7:54 pm
Hi John,

The U.S. was evidently a massive threat to the regimes it toppled. It is also a massive threat to the one in Venezuala and all of its other opponents. Likewise Iran is becoming a greater threat to Western powers which it opposes. There is, however, one difference worth noting: The proxy-armies through which Iran attacks its opponents are ideological allies of its regime. Given nuclear weapons, they would still continue to act on its behalf.

Hi Alisa,

I don't consider myself "King of international law". I just consider you and many other posters here to be effectively worse informed on it than the small children (about a year old and very cute) I saw today. They know about as much regarding international law as you do, but at least they won't run around claiming to understand it.

Who in their right mind would have accepted the partition plan of 1947? How about people who did not want to lose a war and end up in the repugnant situation in which Palestinians now find themselves? I agree that much of what has been done to Palestinians is morally repugnant, just not on who is doing it. Their leadership is atrocious, and I mean that in every sense of the word.

I don't disagree with the comment in the NYT (though I do dispute the nature of its bias). As Abdessalam demonstrated, withholding the funds is a violation of the terms of the agreement. Now read my remaining questions which I posted for him. Are the Oslo Agreements actually matters of law rather than a unilateral declaration? Are concerns which by custom are assumed to override terms in any treaty applicable in this case? Is such a violation of terms in fact a normal method of enforcement of the treaty? I know some of these ideas may be foreign to you, so read my response to Abdessalam for further explanation before replying to this.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 10, 2011, 1:57 am
No Stephen, I just don't get your point. Are you saying that it's ok for the USI (and/or the Zionist Entity) to topple regimes that it PERCEIVES as a threat? You did use the word "evidently". In any case, the two legal and popularly elected governments I mentioned were of course no threat to the US. And are you saying that Iran has no right to interfere in the affairs of states that it also might perceive as threatening its integrity or security?
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 10, 2011, 2:00 am
Clearly the USI was a threat to these countries, but they were no threat to it. I disagree that Iran is a threat to the West, but clearly again the USI/Zionist Entity axis is a threat to Iran. I just do not see what you are getting at.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 10, 2011, 2:44 am
ohn - haven't you realized by now that we are just not as intellectually gifted as Stephen, who insists that he is the most knowledgeable about International law, yet still expects us to feed him the answers. For instance, "Are the Oslo Agreements actually matters of law rather than a unilateral declaration? Are concerns which by custom are assumed to override terms in any treaty applicable in this case? Is such a violation of terms in fact a normal method of enforcement of the treaty?" or for us to provide him with the text and title in regard to the transfer of taxes collected by Israel on the behalf of the PA. Even after being told that this was part of the Oslo Accords, he still couldn't be bothered to even google this to find it in Oslo 2, The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip , Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities, Annex V.

According to Stephen, "Just to be clear, the legal status of "Occupied Territory" applies only to parts of one country which are under the control of another as a reality of an ongoing war. Since peace was declared between Israel and Egypt, and between Israel and Jordan, the wars ended and the borders simply moved. "

Every country in the world, except Israel and Stephen, "the new Alan Dershowitz" recognizes East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territory, including the re-affirmation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territory by the ICJ's ruling of July 9, 2004. Security Council Resolution 242, which is enforceable, also holds East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territory. In addition, under International law it is illegal to acquire land through force.

Stephen also states that "" Before angering Israel, maybe the PA should stop depending on it so much that it, and you, take its enormous aid for granted. "

Israel has obligations which it must honor under International law as occupier. Since the Oslo Accords, " Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles (DOP)", powers were given over to the PA in order to work towards self goverance. If Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state, the Palestinians can give it all back to Israel and Israel will be obligated for everything. So perhaps Israel should be working harder at negotiated in good faith, then ending up being completely responsible for services the PA is at this time providing. In addition, if the PA quits and hands it all back to Israel, Israel is in a pretty tough spot. They cannot occupy the land much longer. They think they are isolated now, wait and see how bad this will get if something isn't done. If they annex it, they have to give citizenship. Unless they want to openly practice Apartheid, it wouldn't be a good ending for Israel, the "only democracy in the ME".

Stephen made a point above about ""Pretty well known" really doesn't cut it here. It used to be "pretty well known" that the Earth was flat." I am speaking of the accepted historical record. I am not making any radical, unaccepted claims. I have no interest in discussing this with someone who needs to have each and every point spelled out because he is unfamiliar with the material. Stephen continues to make wild claims which have no basis in fact with nothing to support it, yet he demands that we give him a point by point history lesson. No thanks, not interested.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday December 10, 2011, 3:13 pm
Hi John,

The mandate of a government is to support the well-being of the country it runs and the people upon whose support that government depends. (In a democracy that means all citizens but may mean other things in other sorts of regimes.) When the U.S. poses a threat to another country, or even that country's interests abroad which contribute to the well-being of its people, then by all means it's fine for that country's government to direct its state-infrastructure to protect its country and citizens. The toppled governments had every right to fight back. Likewise if those governments' policies and actions threatened U.S. interests abroad, whether the U.S. depends as a country on some foreign interests or if many of its citizens do, then the U.S. government has a mandate to do what it sees as supporting those interests. There is nothing fundamentally morally wrong with two groups getting into conflict. There does not always have to be a "bad guy".

Hi Alisa,
I did not read through all annexes of the Oslo Accords. I noticed the title, which said that it referred to direct taxation, and figured that because the funds in question are excise taxes and such, not proceeds from direct taxation of the governed, Annex V was not where to find the relevant text. I am glad that Abdessalam found and posted it.

From your statements, I do believe that I am vastly more knowledgeable about international law than you. That does not mean that I know everything, nor that it is impossible for you to know things which I do not. That is why I ask. I also ask in order to encourage you to question these things rather than continue your rants as you ignore pertinent issues.

Every country in the world did rightly recognize the lands as occupied territories until the pace treaties were signed. After years of that, the names stuck. Security Council Resolution 242 is not enforceable now, in the form that you imply, for three separate reasons. The basis it claimed in international law does not exist, the underlying legal framework upon which it was based no longer applies, and as different official copies had different relevant text, the legal custom regarding unclear texts favors the interpretation given by the party which did not contribute towards drafting it, in this case Israel.

Here's the problem with your comment about why Israel should work harder at negotiating: Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. Read my response to John. It is not obliged to work for their well-being. It could just leave them to fend for themselves, receive aid from others, or starve.

I generally do not ask for every point to be spelled out. When you make explicit reference to a document in your primary point, though, I do expect you to to cite your source upon request for verification.

According to Aristotle's 5th Treatise on Quantum Thermodynamics, and this is a direct quote, "Alisa Loring is a moron". Now don't ask me to dig up that source for you. You weren't courteous enough to do the same for me.
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Sunday December 11, 2011, 3:23 am
Addressing Alisa Stephen says " Here's the problem with your comment about why Israel should work harder at negotiating: Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. Read my response to John. It is not obliged to work for their well-being. It could just leave them to fend for themselves, receive aid from others, or starve."
I am not going to mention the responsibility of the Zionist entity as an occupying force towards the people in the occupied land according to Geneva accords but I'll add few words to his statement.

"It is not obliged to work for their well-being. It could just leave them to fend for themselves, receive aid from others, or starve or even turn to be freedom fighters against the occupation force something that they are entitled to do according to international law"
What about this addition Stephen and don't Palestinians,according to international law,have the right to resist the occupation by all means available including violence or non violence?

As for the application of UNSC resolution 242 I would like to draw you attention to the target of Oslo agreements between PLO ( as the sole representative of the Palestinian people and the government of Israel is clear enough . Read this

Article I:
Aim of negotiations:
The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the "Council"), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 11, 2011, 1:50 pm
Thank you so much Stephen for your response. My sister and her husband were over for dinner and your arguments and posts provided us with much laughter, we actually had a wonderful evening. In fact, when my niece Ruthie (she is five) was trying to evade responsibliity and was in fact "wriggling on the hook" in honour of you, we now term it pulling a Stephen.

Of course you wouldn't read the Annexes. That would actually include having to want to be knowledgeable about something rather than skimming through part of a document to try and find something to support your foregone conclusions. In other words, I believe you are like the scientist who looks at the data to support your final conclusion rather than looking at the data and letting it lead you to the conculsion or in this matter the truth. This is my point of having no real interest in having this type of discussion with you because a) I have to do all of the work it seems as you refuse to actually read the material which is being discussed and b) when you are confronted with the axe which actually cuts down your tree of distortion and fable, you essentially do the "never mind" and change the subject. I must admit, you definitely are the King of the Red Herring argument and I have never seen it so skillfully applied.

So even though I wouldn't usually respond to your post because I usually refuse to respond to people who I have to explain the basic history of a subject being discussed, I owe you for such the great evening which was partly due to your posts. I have to do a few things right now, but hopefully will be posting my rebuttal to your claims this evening.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 11, 2011, 5:37 pm
Yes, but Stephen, what are you actually saying? That countries that perceive the US as a threat are allowed to work against it? I just don't get your point. It seems that the countries I cited had the US working against them, while having done nothing to the US.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 11, 2011, 5:46 pm
I think that Stephen supports a lot of things that most people don't support. I think it is clear he is quite supportive of colonialism, imperialism, superiority of some groups of people over others and a lot of other undesirable traits. I think that he is probably a firm believer in the "they hate us for our freedom" ideology rather than using common sense to realize that it is the actions of the US which makes them a target of terrorists, their unilateral support of Israel brings terrorism to their doorstep. If you keep going in and destroying everything and on top of it try to dress it up as a "we are bring them democracy" (which makes it even more offensive), guess what? You make enemies.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 11, 2011, 5:50 pm
". It could just leave them to fend for themselves, receive aid from others, or starve."

That is actually the furthest thing from the truth. Occupiers actually have to provide for the people whose land they are occupying. I have a real problem with your complete disregard of International law while you are stating that you are the most knowledgeable person on Care2 in regard to International law. Really Stephen, give your head a shake.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 11, 2011, 7:04 pm
"Every country in the world did rightly recognize the lands as occupied territories until the pace treaties were signed. After years of that, the names stuck. Security Council Resolution 242 is not enforceable now, in the form that you imply, for three separate reasons. The basis it claimed in international law does not exist, the underlying legal framework upon which it was based no longer applies, and as different official copies had different relevant text, the legal custom regarding unclear texts favors the interpretation given by the party which did not contribute towards drafting it, in this case Israel.

Here's the problem with your comment about why Israel should work harder at negotiating: Palestinians are not Israeli citizens"

Where do you even get this stuff from Hasbara U? The whole premise of UN Security Council Resolution 242 is based upon International law. Right from the onset, from the preamble "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,"

As recent as 2004, the ICJ re-affirmed the principles of 242 in its ruling on the Apartheid Wall. As for the multiple copies you claim that exist, this just shows how superficial your research is. The issue is not about multiple copies, the issue is of the extent to which the UN calls for Israel to withdraw from the territories. The operative word being "the". The French copy refers to the withdrawal required from "the" territories which is assumed to mean all of the territories. The English version does not contain the and people who object to it claim that the reference to withdrawal from territories does not signify how much withdrawal. The point is moot International law is clear about the inadmissability of land acquisition through force. In addition the nature of the occupation also is in contravention to international law.
UN Charter Article 2

Paragraph 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations (1970).

PRINCIPLE I: The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Hague Regulations IV (1904)


Article 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
Article 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Geneva Conventions IV (1949)

Article 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Article 54. The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.

NY Times MAy 25, 2011 by Jimmy Carter

U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967, concluded the war of that year and has been widely acknowledged by all parties to be the basis for a peace agreement. Its key phrases are, “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,” and “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” These included the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, plus lands belonging to Lebanon, Egypt and Syria.

At Camp David in 1978, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat accepted the following words: “The agreed basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is United Nations Security Council resolution 242, in all its parts.”

Specifically concerning the West Bank and Gaza, the Israelis and Egyptians mutually agreed: “In order to provide full autonomy to the inhabitants under these arrangements the Israeli military government and its civilian administration will be withdrawn as soon as a self-governing authority has been freely elected by the inhabitants of these areas. ...” As a result of the Oslo Accords of 1993, a self-governing authority was freely elected in January 1996, with Yasir Arafat as president and 88 Parliament members.

The International Quartet’s Roadmap for Peace in April 2003, supported by President George W. Bush, began with these words: “A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967. ...”

In addition, all 23 Arab nations and all 56 Islamic nations have offered peace and normal relations with Israel, but called upon Israel to affirm: “Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967. ...”

All these statements assume, of course, that Israel may live in peace within its internationally recognized borders — but not including territories it occupied during the 1967 war. Israel withdrew from Egypt’s Sinai as a result of the 1979 peace treaty, but still occupies and is colonizing with settlers the Golan Heights of Syria, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. (When I was negotiating during the 1970s, it was clear that neither Israel nor Egypt wanted to retain control of Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in August 2005, but continues to hold under siege.)

For more than three decades, Israel’s occupation of Arab land has been the key unresolved issue. Stated simply, Israel must give up the occupied land in exchange for peace. There has never been any question regarding the occupied territory in international law as expressed through United Nations resolutions, the official policies of the United States, nor those of the International Quartet (the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia).

A number of peace proposals have included the caveat found in President Obama’s recent speech: that the pre-1967 border can be modified as a result of mutually agreeable land swaps to permit Israeli settlers in areas close to Jerusalem to remain in what is now occupied Palestinian territory, with an equivalent amount of Israeli land to be transferred to the Palestinians.

One interesting proposal that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made to me in 2005 was that this exchanged land might comprise a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank (about 35 miles), on which a railroad and highway could be built. It would be provided security by Israelis but owned and operated by Palestinians. This is just one possibility.

Two recent developments add urgency to the peace process: moves to unite the major Palestinian factions so they can negotiate with a single voice, and the potential vote in the U.N. General Assembly in September to recognize Palestine as a state. It is likely that about 150 U.N. members are prepared to take this action.

The only viable peace alternative is good faith negotiations, with the key issue remaining the same: Israel’s willingness to withdraw from the occupied territories, with the exception of small land swaps as mutually agreed with the Palestinians.

So I have no idea where you get the idea that 242 is no longer applicable and that International law does no longer support it. What you state makes absolutely no sense and is in fact the opposite of what the case actually is.

I am wondering, are you getting your International law from Alan Dershowitz? He too makes these wild statements which are completely contrary to the reality of the situation.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday December 12, 2011, 1:09 am
Hi Abdessalam :)

I figured the right to rebel went without saying. Of course international law permits this: The primary rule of writing laws is that none should be written which cannot be enforced, and nobody can stop a group from rebelling. Of course, any sovereign state also has the right to put down any rebellion within its territory. It is unfortunate (though I also believe inevitable) that reaching a permanent settlement has taken more than five years, but the underlying principles of the Oslo Accords are still there.

Hi John,
I am saying that governments which perceive a threat to their country have a responsibility to work against that threat. Once they saw the U.S. as a threat, they certainly had a right to fight against it. I guess the unclear part is that sometimes there is a false perception of threat on one side (due to excess short-term caution) which leads to a true perception of threat from the other side, which feeds back into a true perception of threat on the first side, raising a cycle of violence (the "Security Dilemma"). For example, check out the conditions before WWI. Other times the policy which establishes the threat is intended to achieve some other goal. For example, check out Erdogan's strategy in Turkish domestic politics and the Israeli reaction: They fear his choice of constituency may force his government to produce hostility between Turkey and Israel and perceive a potential threat, though generally the possible threat is distant and uncertain enough that no strong hostile reaction is seen as warranted. The initial threat can arise without a preexisting conflict.

Hi Alisa,
I'm glad your family enjoyed it. My brother and I also had quite a laugh at your expense.

I get my stuff about it not being legally "Occupied Territory" from text the definition of "Occupied Territory" and the text of the peace treaties between Israel and Jordan, and Israel and Egypt. "Occupied Territory" refers to land which is recognized as part of one state but under the control of another as a reality of war. Without war, there can be no occupation. In the peace treaties, not only did the state of war end, but the land formally changed hands, with the new borders drawn at the Jordan River and with Israel including the Gaza Strip. Both as a legal part of Israel and as a region at peace, occupation can no longer apply. The redrawing of the borders is why Article 6, Paragraph 3 of the 4th Geneva Convention does not extend Israel's responsibility as an occupier. Of course, things like Article 54 which you cited would not apply anyways.

Resolution 242 claims as its basis in international law that land cannot be transferred as a result of war. This so-called principle of international law has never been practiced and, after extensive searching, the closest thing I can find to it in any convention or treaty is an article that forbids wars of conquest. In 1967, Israel was not engaged in a war of conquest. Its campaign was recognized as defensive, so unless you think Israel somehow made Egypt, Syria, and Jordan plan and mass for a coordinated attack, 242 really has no basis. It was just politically expedient to adopt. Since the land-transfer, the whole region is legally a part of Israel so Article 2 of the U.N. Charter states that demanding changes in its governance is beyond the purview of the U.N. Besides, like I mentioned to John, an unenforceable law is not a law at all. In fact it only undermines of the whole body of law of which it is a part. It was assumed at the time that Jordan would enforce it for the West Bank and Egypt for the Gaza Strip (with outside support). Would you really demand that three countries which have made peace return to war to satisfy a resolution of an entity whose stated purpose, in Article 1 of its charter, is to promote peace?

Resolution 242 itself is invalid, but the countries involved are certainly free to use its operative provisions as a basis for a treaty. Israel's responsibility, as written into the peace treaties is, essentially that of a Mandate Power. Much like the British did before, it holds jurisdiction and has agreed to help the local population prepare for independence. Once it is established that they can maintain a peaceful and stable country, it is obliged to let it seek sovereignty. As matters stand, an independent Palestinian state would collapse in civil war within months of independence, at most. (Consider the Hamas-Fatah war over control of the PA security. Now up the ante to control of a sovereign state and ask yourself whether you really believe they wouldn't go right back at it.) I guess maybe Israel should withdraw from the territories in question: It would be much easier to handle things once Palestinians kill off a few hundred thousand of each other. Of course, Israel would end up taking the blame for that. On the other hand, Palestinians are for the most part not evil people and I would not wish such a fate upon them.

As for the promises of the Islamic Bloc to recognize Israel if it withdraws, that sounds like having a soldier yell over to the trench across the battlefield, "I'll be your best friend if you toss out your guns!" Seriously, trading the ability to protect themselves for the promise of those whose rallying calls mostly have nothing to do with the land in question? That would be astoundingly stupid.

The fact is, I think Carter is wrong about the territories being the key issue. I think they are the media's favorite symptom of the conflict, not its cause. I don't believe that good faith negotiations are even possible as the two sides in the conflict have inherited different, and incompatible, methods of conflict-resolution. I don't get my international law from Dershowitz: I get it from the available texts of treaties and conventions. Your statements are often completely at odds with reality, and frankly I believe this disconnect between so many people and reality is part of what perpetuates the problem.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday December 12, 2011, 1:15 am
Hi Alisa,

One last detail:
I don't believe it's a simple matter of "They hate us for our freedom", but it is closer to that than the "They hate us for something we did to them". Look at the rallying and recruitment-calls of the last 20 years. Maybe the original opponents were as you describe, but not the current generation. I'll get into it if you want later, but its a long story going back about 5900 years (to the global warming event which spawned modern civilization) and starting with the access to water in Southern Europe and the lack of it in the Arabian Peninsula.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 12, 2011, 2:39 am
Stephen B

you say:--

"Since the land-transfer, the whole region is legally a part of Israel"

Not that I agree with your analysis for a second, but that is very interesting. I guess then that you would be one of those who agree that the Zionist Entity is operating a form of apartheid in its own country then?
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 12, 2011, 2:51 am
Something that won't've been reported in the USI.


Iceland recognises Palestinian state
Icelandic parliament passes resolution making country the first in western Europe to accept Palestine as an independent state
Associated Press
guardian.co. uk, Wednesday 30 November 2011 08.45 GMT

http://www.guardian .co.uk/world/ 2011/nov/ 30/iceland- recognises- palestinian- state



Iceland has become the first western european country to recognise Palestine as an independent state.

The Icelandic parliament said in a statement on its website that it had passed a motion with 38 of 63 votes in favour of a resolution to recognse Palestine "as an independent and sovereign state" based on borders predating the six-day war of 1967.

"Iceland is the first country in western europe to take this step," Ossur Skarphedinsson, the minister for foreign affairs, told RUV, the Icelandic national broadcasting service. He said the vote had given him the authority to make a formal declaration on the government's behalf, but before doing so he would discuss the move with other Nordic countries.

The resolution, which coincided with the UN's annual day of solidarity with the Palestinian people, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the legal authority for a Palestinian state and urged Israel and Palestine to reach a peace agreement.

The vote comes shortly after the Palestinians successfully gained admission to the UN's cultural agency, Unesco. Iceland was among 11 European Unesco members to support the move.

However, the suspected failure to win the required support of nine of the security council's 15 members, and a promise from the US that it would veto any council resolution endorsing membership, threatens to stall the move for full UN membership.

In a message to the UN on Tuesday, the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, reaffirmed Palestine's bid for membership, saying it should complement peace negotiations provided Israel was prepared to negotiate on the basis of 1967 borders.

In a message read out by Palestinian UN observer Riyad Mansour, Abbas said Palestine's decision to apply to join the UN "is our legitimate right" based on the 1947 UN resolution to partition Palestine into two states.

Icelandic MP Amal Tamimi, who was born in Palestine, welcomed her parliament's move as a first step.

"I hope that more countries will follow suit," she said.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 12, 2011, 2:59 am
The final part of a very moving interview with 2 released heroes from Palestine:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/10/2011102484027863252.html

Hnaini: I want to add something very important. We do not hate Jews. We do not hate Jews for their religion. We hate the occupier. Why are Qataris here walking around in security and safety without carrying guns? They aren't occupied. Why do the French walk around without arms? They aren't occupied.

Asili: But the French did carry arms. When they were occupied, they resisted. But for us, it's even worse. When the French were occupied, the world stood with them and their fight. But we're occupied and the world stands with our occupier. Not only are we occupied, but they want to take away our dignity. They want to label my right to fight oppression as terror, and to label his occupation as law and ethics.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 12, 2011, 5:23 am
Well as you indicated yourself, you don't read the whole tihng. In your own words, "I did not read through all annexes of the Oslo Accords. I noticed the title". You claim that the borders formally changed hands. This is the problem, Israel has never declared their borders which is part of the problem to begin with. This has never been practiced? Well if that was the case, Kuwait would now be part of Iraq.

If you consider the East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as part of the State of Israel, then Israel better start providing citizenship to the population living there. In fact, there has been no annexation or attempt to annex the West Bank nor Gaza. Israel attempted to annex East Jerusalem, but this is not recognized by any country in the world, except for Israel.

Israel's own Supreme Court refers to the "beligerent occupation" and states ""as long as the military force exercises control over the territory, the laws of war will apply to it." (HCJ 785/87, Afo v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank) Ariel Sharon, great believer in expansionism stated "You may not like the word, but what's happening i s occupation. Holding 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the Israeli economy". (Ariel Sharon, May 26, 2003)

Your claim of these lands not being occupied, but a part of Israel proper is completely immaterial. Annexation of these lands is not favorable nor condusive to the Jewish state. Israel presently rules over a population of millions of Palestinians who are hostile to it. The Palestinians occupying this land will then constitute a majority of what you consider to be Israel. That certainly puts is cog in the plan for Israel to remain a Jewish State.

Even if I agreed that your argument had merit, which it doesn't (as stated above, even Israel does not see these lands as part of Israel) what about your argument that Israel holds no responsibility for the people living in the OPT? If they live in lands part of Israel, the State of Israel is responsible for the same rights of these people. In fact, I guess that due to the high unemployment, these people deserve welfare, just like Israelis receive within the original State of Israel. If this isn't true, then the are occupied. You can't have it being part of the State, but then deny all of the residents their basic fundamental human rights, equal rights which Israelis have. I think that these people then are afforded citizenship, along with the right to vote.

"Israeli demographers predict that the fast-growing Arab population in Israel and the OPTs will exceed the Jewish population by 2020." Gorenberg, Gershom ( 2009). “Unnatural Growth”. Foreign Policy online magazine, published June 11, 2009. )

It seems that you have no problem applying principles held by countries who are far from democratic and are considered to be human rights violators. It also seems that you have no problem with Apartheid and actually support it.

The territories are the sole issue. The Palestinians are not fighting to get Israeli land, they are fighting to exercise their right to self determination and the fulfillment of the many number of peace agreements that Israel is signatory to.

Canadian position on Israeli colonies as per the Canadian Foreign Affairs website.

"Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

Canada believes that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must fully respect international human rights and humanitarian law which is key to ensuring the protection of civilians, and can contribute to the creation of a climate conducive to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement." (http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/canadian_policy-politique_canadienne.aspx?lang=eng&view=d)

" The position of the United States on Israeli settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. President Obama's recent speech offered our views on the way forward." (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/06/166371.htm)

"The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) also expressly identifies the transfer of an Occupying powers own civilian population to the territory it occupies as a War Crime punishable by the ICC" (“Settlements and International Law”. Settlement Report vol. 12 no. 7, March, 2002, Foundations for Middle East Peace )

“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, (including East Jerusalem), have been established in breach of international law." (“Settlements and International Law”. Settlement Report vol. 12 no. 7, March, 2002, Foundations for Middle East Peace )

"UN Security Council Resolution 465 of 1980 determined that all attempts by Israel to alter the physical character, demographic composition or status of Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 through colony building are in direct violation of international law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention". ( )

I would suggest that you provide me with solid International law invalidating 242. The State of Palestine's economy would actually improve and grow once not occupied. As Israel controls all what goes in and out, it is pretty hard to have any kind of economy.

The Islamic Bloc, as so put it has no bearing on this. The PA recognized the state of Israel formally almost twenty years ago. It doesn't matter if Iran doesn't recongize Israel as a State or any other country for that matter.

Carter is wrong. Well of course you would claim that Carter is wrong. Just as you seem to ignore the rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court, The ICJ, agreements Israel has accepted and signed. If it interfers with your defense of Israel, you seem to think it is wrong.

My statements are at odds with reality? I don't think so Stephen. I think that you pick up little things you read, a sentence here, a sentence there without actually reading any International law. It seems you are woefully ignorant of the history and International law. You are the person who is claiming the world is flat, while every country in the world recognizes the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are all occupied territory.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday December 12, 2011, 4:45 pm
Hi John,

I actually would not agree that Israel is running some sort of Apartheid setup. The land was certainly transferred, but Palestinians did not become Israeli citizens. Under Apartheid, a country favors one set of citizens over another to the point where it is derelict in its duty to serve its people. While the land was transferred under the peace treaties and Israel did accept a mandate to assist Palestinians in preparation for statehood, it did not accept obligations to Palestinians equivalent to their obligations to its own citizens.

Hi Alisa,

Borders are declared here:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israel-Jordan%20Peace%20Treaty%20Annex%20I
and here:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israel-Egypt+Peace+Treaty.htm
(Article 1, paragraph 2 sets the border at the old Egypt/British Mandate Palestine border.)
Unfortunately, as there is still a state of war in the north where the location of the border is a matter of the grievances of war, no border there has been legally finalized.

I remember discussing the annex on Care2 before: The annex itself is not recognized. Rules which dictate that such an annex under the conditions where it occurred are to be recognized, however, are. The lack of recognition is a direct result of a double-standard.

The territories in question would reduce the Jewish majority in Israel in the same way that the Mandate regions and colonies reduced the English dominance of the United Kingdom. While roughly half of Israel's subjects are not Jews, a large majority of its citizens are. The point of my argument above is that Israel does not have the legal obligations which normally come with occupied territory. They are, arguably, not part of Israel proper, but they are also not occupied territory.

Regarding Apartheid, read my response to John.

I agree with the Canadian position: Not all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip should be permanently a part of Israel. Under the peace treaties in which it acquired the territory, it accepted a mandate to help the locals prepare for statehood. However, permanent and indefinite are not the same thing: Israel cannot perform nation-building on behalf of the Palestinians. They must take the lead on that. Until they do so, Israel must maintain control over the territory. If it takes another two generations before that happens, then so be it.

Truth be told, in principle I don't like the settlements either. However, they serve a good purpose in the peace process, as I noted in my post here on November 28. I want to see Israel push for settlements and then mostly sacrifice them in the final deal, and handing the rest over to Palestinian jurisdiction while treating them as protectorates in order to ensure a genuine two-state solution rather than a one-and-a-half-state solution.

As for the U.N., it has thoroughly lost all credibility regarding this issue. You want solid international law invalidating 242? Sorry to disappoint you, but 242 is undermined not by the presence of a contradictory law, but by the absence of supporting law. It is intended as an application of the legal principle that land cannot change hands as a result of war, but no such principle exists. Leaving aside its declaration that Israeli patriotism constitutes racism, the so-called "Human Right Council"'s numerous scandals, the ridiculous mandate of its Special Rapporteur in the area, and the resulting bias in its investigative infrastructure, the UNSC members knew in 1967 that they had made up a new "legal principle" which was never applied before nor afterwards, just for 242. Regarding Kuwait, in case you hadn't noticed, the U.S. sided with Kuwait and Iraq lost that war. In no conceivable way would Kuwait have ended up as part of Iraq. I suppose in your version of reality, Desert Storm was a total victory for Saddam over Kuwait.

Where did I ignore the Israeli Supreme Court? There was an ICJ ruling with which I disagree regarding the security-barrier (as that barrier is beyond the purview of international law), but I certainly don't ignore it.

Your statements are at odds with reality: I don't have to look terribly far for your ignorance of international law and the resulting nonsense: "This is the problem, Israel has never declared their borders which is part of the problem to begin with." "Well if that was the case, Kuwait would now be part of Iraq." Also, your conviction that residency means the same as citizenship is ridiculous: Citizenship is not something given to every person living in a country. A citizen is a person legally recognized as a loyal servant of the state which grants that citizenship and the protection of rights which comes with it. Do Palestinians pay taxes to Israel? Are they subject to military conscription like Israeli citizens? More importantly, if they were, would they actually fight for it? Do they identify themselves nationally as Israelis? Are all other national identifications which they maintain with nations so closely allied with Israel that it sees no conflict of interest in granting dual citizenship? No? Then they don't get to be Israeli citizens. Living on the land, having been born there, etc. is often used as the litmus test of such loyalty, but it obviously doesn't apply in this case.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday December 12, 2011, 4:52 pm
Hi Alisa,

Just one more note:
You just demonstrated that you fit a caricature of liberals often promoted by their opponents. You declared that a group of people deserves the rights of citizenship as a birthright, totally ignoring all the duties and responsibilities which come with them. Do you have any sense of responsibility to those who protect your rights at all?

Aside from that, you also fit another outright caricature: You repeatedly claimed a monopoly on the truth. Magically, everything you say is supposed to be true and everything which contradicts you is supposed to be false. Those who disagree with you get to be evil malicious liars in your world because you define the truth to be the narrative you believe. With the claim of supreme knowledge, you then claimed to hold greater authority on the matter under discussion while in the same statement demonstrating that you do not. You are exactly what the other side mocks.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 12, 2011, 5:30 pm
Stephen B

If you want to answer me, please don't bother either twisting or changing my words and/or changing yours.I reproduce my original post:--

[You said] "Since the land-transfer, the whole region is legally a part of Israel"

[I said] "Not that I agree with your analysis for a second, but that is very interesting. I guess then that you would be one of those who agree that the Zionist Entity is operating a form of apartheid in its own country then?"

Now you have changed your statement to try to assert that the land was transferred a some sort of "mandate" to assist Palestinians to statehood. Quite apart from the fact that this is an interpretation completely unique to yourself and it's nonsense, you clearly thought I wouldn't notice your shift in position.

I also asked you if the Zionist Entity was operating a "form of apartheid in its own country". Now that you have shifted your ground, I guess that you have would be saying "no".

You see Stephen, I am beginning to get a handle on you. You post the most abject nonsense I've seen on IP threads anywhere and don't back up anything you say. You have even had to admit, in the face of incintravertible evidence posted by other contributors that you haven't actually done your homework. Your posts are pompous and ill thought out; you're not a lawyer, but you think you have seen flaws in the interpretations of the best legal minds worldwide.

And your nasty little asides to Ms Loring, who is one of the few people here who actually references to what she states are a scandal.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 12, 2011, 9:39 pm
Stephen - Since the discussion was about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the borders between Jordan and Israel and the borders between Israel and Egypt. This really doesn't come in handy. Unless you are insinuating that West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza are part of Israel which they forgot to formally attempt to annex?

Who says that the annexes are not recognized? Do you know what is actually contained in the annexes? I wish for once, you would actually provide some International law which actually states that the annexes are not recognized. It seems that you claim to be the expert on International law, yet I am the one who is always citing it and providing it. An annex is something you are attaching to a larger entity. It is used to specify, to give a more detailed clarification of the Article itself.

In clearly says within the text of for instance, the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, Article 1, Transfer of Authority, 3. The transfer of powers and responsibilities to the police force established by the Palestinian Council in accordance with Article XIV below (hereinafter "the Palestinian Police") shall be accomplished in a phased manner, as detailed in this Agreement and in the Protocol concerning Redeployment and Security Arrangements attached as Annex I to this Agreement (hereinafter "Annex I"). Then when you go to the actual Annex, Which is Annex 1 in this instance, you will read specifics regarding the First Phase of Redeployment, etc. This is still part of the Accords and spells out the manner in which each Article is implemented.

Well no kidding the territories would reduce the Jewish majority to an actual Jewish minority. We are no longer operating as the Mandate did and we actually no longer support colonialization. Thus I think references to what existed prior to the International law which has been put in place since and are no longer worth discussing. Things that used to be legal, like slavery, are no longer legal. Thus applying the laws of a time where there was legal slavery to the issue of slavery today, really doesn't lend any value to any argument.

This is why I have a problem with your declaration of understanding International law. You rather than rely on how International law is interpreted through your eyes rather than concentrate what has already been established under International law. What is even worse is that you are not arguing that the recognized laws which apply to the Israeli Palestinian conflict need to be challenged, you won't even admit that the laws I have stated have already been applied to the situation by the Court, including Israel's own Supreme Court. Considering that the letter which accompanied the application to the UN stated "On behalf of the State of Israel, I, Moshe Shertok, Minister for Foreign Affairs, being duly authorized by the State Council of Israel, declare that the State of Israel hereby unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertake to honour them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations" and the declaration itself stated "A formal declaration that the Government of Israel accepts all the obligations stipulated in the United Nations Charter is enclosed. My government submits that Israel's admission to the United Nations will constitute an act of international justice to the Jewish people, fully consistent with United Nations policy on Palestine, and will contribute to the stabilization of the Middle East and to the cause of international peace", Israel certainly again is falling short of its' obligations. Israel's own Declaration of Independence declares "it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations" and it is "prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947". Are you telling me that they are no longer required to abide by the Charter and Security Council Resolutions?

You cannot have a people not being occupied or not being part of Israel proper. That is clear fence sitting using what you find beneficial to either state without committing to either. You cannot have a population sit there with no status until eternity. You may very well believe that these are not occupied Palestinian territory, but your opinion doesn't really matter. What does matter is what the court has decided and what the international community says. I really doubt that the ICJ, ICC or even Israel itself is going to call you and ask for you to clarify to them how International law has been applied. I don't even think that Alan Dershowitz is going to call you and ask for you to be part of his legal team. So, you can argue until your blue in the face what you think it means. It is kind of like claiming the moon is made of green cheese after the first man landed on the moon.

You claim that Israel cannot perform nation bulding on the behalf of the Palestinians. Israel is the problem why they cannot develop the economy. What kind of economy would Canada have it the US controlled what went in and what when out decided on some type of arbitrary, flip a coin type of method? Israel has actually stated more than once of their specific desire to de-develop the OPT. This was in Wikileaks, this was said outloud in public with the famous Palestinians on a diet statement. This is nothing new. If anyone actually takes an interest in this conflict, they would actually be reading about it. Obviously, you don't seem to have an interest in what really does apply to the conflict in the way of International law, the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of the IDF, you just want to spin more hasbara.

Well you might not like the settlements and claim that you would like them to turn them over in the end, but Israel loves the settlements. The settlements have been in the works for basically "Time Immemorial". Settlement building was discussed even before the 1967 war. The ink on the UN partition had barely dried and they were talking about settlement building. So whether you think that they should give them up in the end, using them I gather to manipulate the Palestinians into giving up more of their legal rights, you won't be negotiating, nor will you have the ear to the International community. At some point, even the US will no longer be able to allow this to continue.

Again you deny that the inadmissability of acquiring land through force is not rooted in International law, yet I specifically gave you instances of just that. Just because it hasn't been enforced doesn't mean that it isn't still valid law. The Court is quite clear on the inadmissability of acquiring land through force and this hasn't change. With Palestine now being a member of UNESCO, things could go very wrong for Israel is short order. It just depends upon how patient the Palestinians are willing to be. Eventually when all avenues are exhausted, which they are very close to exhausting, they now have a viable legal way to address this.

Some of the principles of International law which apply to 242 predates the declaration of this resolution. "The relevant instruments of international humanitarian law that apply to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, including Jerusalem, are: The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of August 12, 1949, Additional Protocol I of1977 and the Regulations Annexed to the Hague Convention No. TV respecting the laws and customs of war on land of 1907. An international consensus exists among States, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), that the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (as well as the Hague Regulations of 1907) is fully applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. As such, the entire international community (except the occupying Power) considers the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, along with the other Arab territories occupied by Israel in 1967, to be "occupied territories" subject to international humanitarian law." ("Israel's Belligerent Occupation of the Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem and International Humanitarian Law", 15 July 1999).

You may think that the UN is no longer credible, but Security Council Resolutions are still applicable and enforceable. There are numerous Secuirty Council Resolutions which refer to Israel as the occupying power. "Many of those resolutions call upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the provisions of the Convention and to accept its de jure applicability." ("Israel's Belligerent Occupation of the Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem and International Humanitarian Law", 15 July 1999)

In regard to Kuwait and Iraq. You don't think the issue of the inadmissability of acquiring land through force was addressed through International Law. You don't think that Kuwait was occupied? The Gulf war came about specifically to address the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. "The Gulf War (1991) was characterized by a general consent reached in the United Nations Security Council for the materialization of an enforcement action aiming to end the Iraqi occupation in Kuwait with a series of resolution reaching finally a clear authorization for use of force." (Military Action against Iraq and the System of Law Governing the Use of Force, 2007). So I don't understand your statement regarding "In no conceivable way would Kuwait have ended up as part of Iraq. I suppose in your version of reality, Desert Storm was a total victory for Saddam over Kuwait. ". I used Kuwait and Iraq as the example of the inadmissability of acquiring land through force and you somehow turned that into me claiming that Desert Storm was a totally victory for Saddam over Kuwait? The whole point is that the Gulf war clearly demonstrates that the legal principle of inadmissability of the acquisistion of land through force is what led to the US led United Nations authorized coalition force to act against Iraq. The whole war was about the illegality of acquiring land in this manner. You don't quite make sense and don't seem to even understand the fundamental premise of the Persian Gulf War. The Gulf War proves my point that the illegality of this principle a) was applied to another State (where you had claimed "this so-called principle of international law has never been practiced" and with your additional statement " after extensive searching, the closest thing I can find to it in any convention or treaty is an article that forbids wars of conquest" supports my assertation that you research this by googling here and googling there to make your argument.

You get them from available texts and treaties? Which text and treaties? If you have something to support your argument why are you so hesitant in posting it. Give me something on why 242 is invalid. Something either from the Court itself (ICC or ICJ or any Security Council Resolution, ANYTHING. You provide nothing to support these claims which contradict what the Court has ruled or anything written in legalese to address this. You state that the UN (which Israel promised to heed) is ineffective and doesn't count. It doesn't even matter. Every, I mean each and every country, recognizes these principles of International law and are in agreement with my argument. That includes the United States, that includes Canada. They each refer to Israel as occupied territory.


"Where did I ignore the Israeli Supreme Court? There was an ICJ ruling with which I disagree regarding the security-barrier (as that barrier is beyond the purview of international law), but I certainly don't ignore it. "

I gave the example of the Israel Supreme Court, not just the ruling of the Apartheid wall ruling from the ICJ, but the Israel Supreme Court in HCJ 785/87, and Ariel Sharon himself referring to it as a belligerent occupaton. I provide the information, it is sitting there a clear as day and yet you ignore the Supreme Court judement I cited and claim that I provided only an ICJ ruling. I really now am at loss as to what the problem is. I assume you are fluent in English, can read and you seem to write reasonably well, so why do you continually do this? It is not that you even are saying, in this case, that you disagree with the Israeli HCJ or that I erred in typing what was said in their ruling, but you actually infer that I provided the ICJ ruling, but not the HCJ?

Then you go on to say that the Wall is beyond the purview of International law. Well as long as the Wall travels on Israeli land it is not under the purview of International law. When it snakes through the West Bank on Palestinian land, eating up dunham after dunham, it is under the purview of International law. If Canada built a wall which encompassed part of Detroit, I think that International law is quite applicable and is designed just for situations specifically like that.

You and Israel claim this is not true even with their own court, even when ruling in favor of Israel in this specific case. The Israeli Court states "necessary for the needs of the army" still mentions " by the international law applicable to an area under belligerent occupation" referring to Israel's occupation as BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION.

In this one ruling alone, HCJ 2056/04, belligerent occupation is mentioned 24 times. They aren't arguing that it isn't an occupation. Their ruling is that it is a belligerent occupation, but favor Israel in their ruling due to national security. The ruling states "The military commander is not permitted to take the national, economic, or social interests of his own country into account . . . even the needs of the army are the army’s military needs and not the national security interest in the broad meaning of the term." They goes on to state "The military administration is not permitted to plan and execute a system of roads in an area held in belligerent occupation, if the objective is only to construct a ”service road” for his own country. The planning and execution of a system of roads in an occupied territory can be done for military reasons . . . the planning and execution of a system of roads can be done for reasons of the welfare of the local population. This planning and execution cannot be done in order to serve the occupying country." This is just one ruling and it is clear that even the Israeli interpretation of International law recognizes that this is an occupation, and not just a normal occupation, a belligerent occupation.

Here is more.

"The High Court said that the authority of the military commander in that area flows from the provisions of public international law established principally in the 1907 Hague Regulations, which reflect customary international law, and the humanitarian provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The High Court cited Articles 23(g) and 52 of The Hague Regulations and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention." ("Israeli High Court Decision on Location of West Bank Barrier ", American Society of International Law, July 2004).

H.C.J. 2056/04 Supreme Court of Israel - "The court’s judgment confirmed the applicability of the laws of belligerent occupation found in the 1907 Hague Regulations and 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention (whose humanitarian rules Israel undertook to apply to the Occupied Territories". There is plenty more, but I think that this is sufficient.

Hmmm... you admit that you don't read this, or didn't find this and have not once posted International law to support your claims. No, I don't think you actually get your International law from Dershowitz, because at least he has some knowledge about it. You tell me that my statements is at odd with reality, but you don't even acknowledge rulings made by the Courts regarding this. IF my statements are at odd with reality, then why does every country in the world, with the exception of Israel, share the same position that I have?

Do Palestinians pay taxes to Israel?

"Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections. They are, however, forced to pay taxes to the Israeli government. Though they pay taxes to the Israeli government, they do not receive equal government services. Taxes collected in the Occupied Territories are primarily spent inside Israel, not in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip." ("Palestine: An Introduction to history & Issues", PSC, Seattle)

"Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem pay taxes but receive far fewer services than do residents of
predominantly Jewish West Jerusalem. ((Separate and Unequal, Israel's Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories", Human Rights Watch, 2010)

"Some Israeli employers deduct taxes and social security from Palestinian workers’ paychecks, but these deductions go to the state of Israel, which provides no services or benefits to the
workers except in cases of work accidents or the bankruptcy of the employer; from 1970 to
2009, the majority of funds withheld from Palestinian workers’ paychecks (roughly 10
percent of the paycheck), supposedly for the payment of unemployment, disability, old-age
and child benefits, were transferred from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor to the
Ministry of Finance and thus to the state budget, according to a study by an Israeli
economist and the head of a workers’ rights NGO". (Separate and Unequal, Israel's Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories", Human Rights Watch, 2010)

"At the same time, Palestinians—who must scrupulously pay their municipal taxes in order to
have proof that Jerusalem is their “center of life” and thereby avoid the cancellation of their
residency permits—suffer from inadequate municipal services, lack of school classrooms,
inadequate sewage services, unpaved roads, and poor or non-existent garbage collection". ((Separate and Unequal, Israel's Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories", Human Rights Watch, 2010)

So in Occupied Territory (East Jerusalem, portions of Area C) Palestinians do pay taxes. These people that reside in the OPT did not immigrate to this area recently. They have been there the whole time. They cannot vote, they are discriminated against, they cannot partake, in most cases, family unification, etc. The cannot go and apply for citizenship and receive it. Israel will not give citizenship to any Palestinians since the original offer was made when the State of Israel came into existance. So they have no chance of citizenship, no equal rights, not voting, etc., yet you expect loyalty. This also isn't like these are immigrants coming from the other side of the world. These are people who have lived in this area.

And for the very last point you made where you claim that I fit a caricture of liberals. I would rather fit the caricture of a liberal who actually stands for human rights for everyone, not just certain groups. I provide support for what I claim is true, each and everytime. My argument is based on International law, the history of the conflict, what Israel leaders have stated, what historians have said or written about (of which there is an consensus among these historians), the position of the International community which I provide for you and actually give you the material. I don't even refer to it vaguely, or some unnamed principle which in your case you fail to name or provide, but actually post the relevant information. Where in the world did I say that people who disagree with me are lying? I certainly can state that there are only two options, either they are unaware because they chose not to spend anytime to learn about the conflict or they do know and are intentional in their misinformation. I am not making this stuff up, for everything I state I have a tone of evidence to go with it. These are laws not just ideas which have already been proven and been applied to the situation. There are resolutions and judgements which support this, they are not some untried interpretation of the law. The law is usually pretty clear and has applied these principles and tenets of law to it. It is not like I am making claims which test new legal territory. Your claims have no basis nor have you provided anything, not one item of law to shore up your argument. Nothing, nada, zip. I haven't claimed that I am an expert, you made the arrogant claim "While I do have a better grasp of international law than frankly anyone I have seen on Care2, I would not call myself qualified as a lawyer. Consider what that says about Care2." Not only do you claim that you have a better understanding of International law with not once providing any real international law to support you, you also make some snide insinuation about the nature of Care 2. If you feel that Care 2 is beneath you, then why would you even bother to be here or post? What I am claiming is that if you are going to make these grandiose claims of intellectual superiority (which seems to be something you really believe in with virtually everything you post), I would at least know the facts regarding the nature of the argument before posting and claiming that everything people who frankly find your posts proposterous are wrong. I wouldn't argue a point I know nothing about just because someone is posting something that skews my belief system or underminds my essential arguments.

Stephen, I certainly can see that you are representative of many of the posters who stand for Israeli policy even if the true is inconvenient. I find these people, such as the Gillians of Care2, who have no clue about history, law, human righs, they don't even possess a rudimentary understanding of the conflict. These are people who base their narrative on the empty land without a population rhetoric which continues to be debunked based on not Palestinian facts, but records from Israel itself. What is even worse than not knowing anyting and just avoiding to discuss the article in question like the Gillians of Care2, you actually attempt to defend a story and action that not one country outside of Israel supports.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday December 13, 2011, 12:30 am
Hi John,

My point in my previous response to you was that there is a difference between the transfer of land and the conference of citizenship. As for the mandate-status of the region, the final border between the north and south ends of the West Bank were left undetermined despite the land being placed under Israeli rule by Jordan, the previous owner, in peace. The intent was to have the Palestinians living there take part in the final determination despite Jordan's expressed disinterest in retaining the territory. That sounds like a temporary ownership to me, and that would make it a mandate-territory. Even if it's not, that doesn't really matter for your question: Whether or not the land legally became part of Israel would not determine whether the people living on it would legally become Israeli citizens.

Also, if you reread my previous posts here, I said outright that while I had my doubts, I wanted to see the text of the treaty. I did not call Alisa or Abdessalam liars and simply contradict them regarding whether the withholding of funds violated the agreement. The unpleasant exchange between me and Alisa began after she refused to cite her source, demanding that I find it instead. Applying precisely her method, I could still support the claim that she is a moron: She has failed to locate Aristotle's 5th Treatise on Quantum Thermodynamics and demonstrate that it does not state that she is a moron. In any normal discussion, I would be expected to produce that fictional source, but playing by her rules, I'm waiting for her to demonstrate that it does not say so.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday December 13, 2011, 1:16 am
Hi Alisa,

Regarding the annex, read my response to John. The territories were placed under Israeli jurisdiction in the peace treaty, with the intention that the jurisdiction be temporary, but not as occupied territories. The unrecognized annex to which I referred was Israel's annex of East Jerusalem to its permanent territory, not an attachment to some body of law. Here is the source:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/46F2803D78A0488E852560C3006023A8

The change of framework to which I referred was not a change of treaties or conventions. It was a change of legal status in the Israeli-Jordanian and Israeli-Egyptian relations from war to peace. Laws referring to land of one country controlled by another as a reality of war then no longer apply.

UNSC 242 and many other resolutions which the UN passes actually violate its own charter. I noted earlier how UNSC 242 violates both halves of Article 1 (making demands beyond its purview by going beyond established treaties and conventions, and for enforcement would outright demand that two countries go to war), and now violates Article 2 (interfering within a country's sovereign territory).

Kuwaiti territory was occupied by Iraq and the immediate threat to Kuwait's territorial integrity spurred its allies into military action. When the war ended, Iraq had lost. The only legal principle possibly supported was the U.N.'s mutual defense-pact and nothing else. The only way I see that translating into forbidding Israel from holding land taken in war is through a demand that war be resumed and the land be taken back with outside intervention. However, it is not even certain that the mutual defense-pact was supported there: The intervening states simply preferred Kuwait over Iraq.

Israel may choose to apply whatever restrictions upon itself that it wishes. For example, it could enact a law requiring that its citizens' beards must be dyed purple. That does not make it bound by any external agreement, nor obliged to do any more than it wishes, nor even obliged to maintain its own self-induced restraint. If it wishes to draw upon the humane legal principles of the Geneva Conventions, then I certainly support that. However, I would not demand that it do so. This is the difference between laws of ethics and laws of justice.

Countries generally side with your position because it is politically expedient. They want oil and they saw what happened in the 1970s when the U.S. was seen as too anti-Arab. Did you really think the truth actually dictates the positions of governments?

Israel does take 25% of Palestinian income-tax, for income earned within Israel.
www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/cds/agreements/pdf/is19.pdf
I'll look into the amount spent in the territories later. (It;s getting late here.) I noted your remarkable lack of reference to the other duties of citizenship.

I post here because on occasion I do find interesting discussions and interesting news.

As for your "nothing, nada, zip",
www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/cds/agreements/pdf/is19.pdf
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/46F2803D78A0488E852560C3006023A8
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israel-Jordan%20Peace%20Treaty%20Annex%20I
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israel-Egypt+Peace+Treaty.htm
Those are just references so far in this discussion: two peace treaties, and the UN charter's relevant articles. Of course, if it ever contradicts your claims then you won't recognize it. I guess as far as you're concerned, that is all "nothing, nada, zip."
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday December 13, 2011, 1:17 am
I should probably also note that if Palestinian leaders weren't embezzling Palestinian taxes for themselves or spending it on weapons to use against Israel, that would make a much larger difference than Israel possibly could with its 25%.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 13, 2011, 2:38 am
Sorry Stephen. You said "Since the land-transfer, the whole region is legally a part of Israel" .

What has changed is your argument, now that you have been called out. You are now saying, I take it, from your rather convoluted posts, that your original statement was wrong or you are agreeing that the Zionists are practising a "form of apartheid".

Here's your amswer:--

"My point in my previous response to you was that there is a difference between the transfer of land and the conference of citizenship. As for the mandate-status of the region, the final border between the north and south ends of the West Bank were left undetermined despite the land being placed under Israeli rule by Jordan, the previous owner, in peace. The intent was to have the Palestinians living there take part in the final determination despite Jordan's expressed disinterest in retaining the territory. That sounds like a temporary ownership to me, and that would make it a mandate-territory."

Could you give me examples of transfers of land in, say, the past 100 years or so when transfer of land did not involve conferring of citizenship? Remember you said "part of Israel". I can think of a few where it did confer citizenship, Alsace-Lorraine (3 times), Schleswig-Holstein, Tibet, Transylvania, English Cameroon to the unified Cameroon. And so on. Please give examples of these transfers, either by treaty or otherwise that did not involve citizenship issues.

In addition, for one who claims to have a better legal mind than anyone on these threads, your use of language to support your points is sloppy. "sounds like" and "would make it" do not cut it at all.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 13, 2011, 2:41 am
Oh and Stephen, regarding your "point" about embezzlement, the embezzlement of nothing, is, well, nothing. If they're not getting the money, they're not swindling it, are they?
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 13, 2011, 4:02 am

OMG, I won't be able to answer Stephen until tonight as it will take that long to stop laughing my ass off. To be called a moron by you is actually a compliment. All that comes to mind while reading your post Stephen and while I am actually trying to pick my lower mandible off of the floor and rehinge it is "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday December 13, 2011, 5:31 pm
Hi John,

The land is legally part of Israel, with the intent that this legal condition be temporary. I don't see the contradiction there. I do claim that the posts I have seen here tell me I have a better legal mind than any on these threads, but that by no means makes me an expert.

You might not have noticed, but after the release of this article, Israel did hand over the funds. Aside from that, the PA does collect direct taxes directly from Palestinians. They have more than enough money to embezzle. In fact, this corruption was a major election-issue the last time Palestinians voted and the reason why so many voted for Hamas. The most appropriate example of conquest without citizenship is the conquest by Allied Powers of the Middle East from the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs who fell under British and French sovereignty did not become British or French citizens. Yes, I know that the Middle East is generally not considered to have become a part of Britain and France, but this was its legal condition. Then there are claims of expulsion from Alsace-Lorraine following French conquest in cases where citizenship was not offered. In the German conquest of Poland at the beginning of WWII, only ethnic Germans in Poland were granted German citizenship. I'm pretty sure I could dig up several more cases if you want.

Hi Alisa,

I'm laughing too. I was demonstrating why your logic regarding citation of sources was absurd, not actually calling you a moron. I could just as easily have concluded from some other fictitious source that the Pope is a Martian and waited for you to find it and prove otherwise. The fact that you couldn't recognize this, however, does contribute toward changing my mind about your intelligence.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 13, 2011, 11:19 pm
Before addressing your post to me, I do have to comment on what you had said to John, " the final border between the north and south ends of the West Bank were left undetermined despite the land being placed under Israeli rule by Jordan, the previous owner, in peace".

Where in the world did Jordan cede the the West Bank to Israel? King Hussein renounced all claims to the West Bank and ceded all Jordanian claims to the territory to the PLO.

"With the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) enjoying broad international support as the "sole representative" of Palestinians, Jordan's King Hussein cedes to the PLO all his country's territorial claims in the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem" ("The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", Council on Foreign Relations)

As for your annex item.

You posted that "I did not read through all annexes of the Oslo Accords. I noticed the title, which said that it referred to direct taxation, and figured that because the funds in question are excise taxes and such, not proceeds from direct taxation of the governed, Annex V was not where to find the relevant text. "

(see this is about the Annexes to the Interim Agreement (Oslo II))

My response "Of course you wouldn't read the Annexes. That would actually include having to want to be knowledgeable about something rather than skimming through part of a document to try and find something to support your foregone conclusions. In other words, "

(still about the Annexes to the Interim Agreement (Oslo II))

Then I wrote "Well as you indicated yourself, you don't read the whole tihng. In your own words, "I did not read through all annexes of the Oslo Accords. I noticed the title".

(still about the Annexes to the Interim Agreement (Oslo II))

Now you state "I remember discussing the annex on Care2 before: The annex itself is not recognized. Rules which dictate that such an annex under the conditions where it occurred are to be recognized, however, are. The lack of recognition is a direct result of a double-standard."

You here responded incorrectly where you suddenly were speaking to me about the annexes I had only addressed in reference to the Interim Agreement. I was still assuming you were talking about what was being discussed, not just jiumped onto another completely different manner.

Logic would dictate that the discussion was about Annex in the context considering that is what I was speaking to. I was speaking to your claim of International Law expert, though you didn't even bother to read the Annexes. Thus, I posted "Rules which dictate that such an annex under the conditions where it occurred are to be recognized, however, are. The lack of recognition is a direct result of a double-standard. "

This is your lasst post on this.

"Regarding the annex, read my response to John. The territories were placed under Israeli jurisdiction in the peace treaty, with the intention that the jurisdiction be temporary, but not as occupied territories. The unrecognized annex to which I referred was Israel's annex of East Jerusalem to its permanent territory, not an attachment to some body of law."

Now, how would I know that while we were discussing your failure to bother looking in the annexes in regard to taxation, you had found another shiny object and decided to change midstream onto the annexation of land, and in this case you actually provide something you believe supports your argument. When I looked at what you have put down as support, it links me to an UN website regarding the non recongized annexation of East Jerusalem and Resolution 252 which you claim is proof of your argument. This proof proves nothing. My discussion with you was about the Annexes which were printed out on a piece of paper as supplement to the Interim Agreement. So you change topic midstream to something you weren't discussing with me in the first place.

So why would I refer to what you wrote to John as it had nothing to do with what I was telling you, which is that for someone who claims to be knowlegable about International law regarding the conflict and doesn't know anything about the Annexes is a complete contradiction. This leads me to believe that your knowledge of International law in regard to the conflict is limited at best.

This is just as galling as you insistence on everyone applying you with material you are unfamiliar with as if your googling fingers were broken. Then you try to make some lame attack calling me a moron because you claim that I have failed to locate "Aristotle's 5th Treatise on Quantum Thermodynamics and demonstrate that it does not state that she is a moron". When did you mention prior to this "Aristotle's 5th Treatise on Quantum Thermodynamics"? Since you haven't asked for it, nor are we discussing Quantum Thermodynamics, what does that have to do with anything? Nor have I claimed to know anything about the subject and if I was in a discussion of it, I think that you would be quite annoyed when I began to question and doubt you in regard to fundamental principles of the discipline. You wouldn't start giving me a lesson in the fundamentals in order so that you could lead me to the point where I erred in my position. It is the same thing, you want to argue International law without even reading something that is fundamental to Oslo II and when you show how little you know by demanding me to provide you with something that a) you could have googled and found for yourself and b) is common knowledge. Why should I provide you with anything. It is not like you provide the same courtesy to anyone else.

This is why I find this so tiring after awhile dealing with you. The next point you attempt to make is that the change of the Israeli Jordanian status is resultant of their relations going from war to peace. You claim that the laws referring to the land of one country controlled by another as a reality of war then no longer applies. Whether there is anything legally that can actually support this position really is insignificant. King Hussein ceded the West Bank to the PLO and the Palestinian people PRIOR to the implementation of the Israeli-Jordan Peace Treaty. The West Bank was ceded to the Palestinians SIX YEARS BEFORE it declared peace with Jordan.

Where does the UN Charge, Article 1:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

First, where does Article 1 contract 242 contradict UN Charter Article? Where is it violating " both halves of Article 1 (making demands beyond its purview by going beyond established treaties and conventions" both halves of Article 1 (making demands beyond its purview by going beyond established treaties and conventions, and for enforcement would outright demand that two countries go to war), and now violates Article 2 (interfering within a country's sovereign territory)?

Kuwait, the Council condemned the invasion and, subsequently, the continued occupation of Kuwait by the military forces of Iraq. (Resolution 660 - 1990) In connection with the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the members of the Council condemned publicly and unreservedly the use of force and called upon all regular and irregular military forces involved to act in accordance with this principle.(Preisdential statement of 24 Apr 1992). In connection with the situation in Georgia, the members of the Council recalled the commitment by the parties not to resort to the use of force. (Presidential statement of 8 Oct 1992)

"In a number of instances, the Council reaffirmed the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of States and asked that they be fully respected.

The Council also reaffirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,
the unacceptability of territorial gains or changes brought about by violence." (Considertion of the provisions of other Articles of the Charter, p. 954)

I used this as an example to show that the inadmissability of the acquisition of land by force in response to your claim that this has never been applied. I didn't use it for antyhing other than that.

Israel may not apply whatever restrictions it wants on another population. It is bound by International law. It cannot choose to draw upon the Geneve Conventions, or anty other applicable law, it is bound by it. Your conclusion here is completely unbelievable. You make this statements without providing anything to support it.

Countries support my position because your position is that colonialization is well and alive in the only democracy in the ME. What you base your arguments on is some really strange, almost LSD induced free mind flow which has no foundation in virtually anything you have stated. You decide who, when and why countries can chose to invoke International law and when they can't. Let's just remember what contributed to the fact that US wasn't getting oil in the 1970s.

"Living on the land, having been born there, etc. is often used as the litmus test of such loyalty, but it obviously doesn't apply in this case."

Do you think that Israel is going to give citizenship freely to the Palestinian people? Do you think Palestinians can just go and apply for citizenship? These people are denied virtually everything, have their lives controlled by Israel, their homes demolished, their children harassed by terrorist settlers on the way to school and you want loyalty out of them from a country who has been in one way or another controlling the population for almost six decades?

You note my lack in addressing duties of citizenship? No one is offering them citizenship. Is this your claim, that due to what you perceive to be their lack of loyalty, Israel won't give them citizenship. Israel isn't giving them citizenship because if they do, they will not have a Jewish majority for very long.

So now you are providing me with reference to article on things we argued days ago. So you provide me with al list of links for me to try to figure out with what point you are attempting to make? No reference to what point it refers to? Thanks, but no thanks. I have no interest in going through your extremely lame positions and attempt to figure out what you claim they support. I provide you with what I am basing my argument on in a pretty clear manner no matter what I think of the person I am replying to. You on the other hand resort to calling people morons and giving me a list of useless links. This is something that a three year old would do.

I see that you have already responded to John. So, you now are saying that the land is legally part of Israel as long as it is not permanent. How long is temporary with Israel? Seems right now we are edging up to almost forty-four years of temporary.

Yep, that's it your sharp legal mind who seems to fail to even know the basic law in reference to the topic being discussed. You seem to pride youreslf in the manipuation and distortion of the principles of established international law which is already in existence and is not in anyway law untested or contraversial to defend really severe violations of international law and human rights on for most part a civilian population. You think that makes you look like you have a great legal mind. No, it makes you look like a shyster, unethical, inhumane and disreputable. It is not something which most people wouldn't aspire to be.
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday December 14, 2011, 12:29 am
For goodness sake Stephen. We are talking about citizenship being conferred on people who become part of another country, as you claim that the WB has become part of the Zionist Entity. We are not talking about "Mandates" in the ME that were granted to the UK and France. These precluded the grant of citienship as the mandates were trusteeships only, not even colonisations. As for Germany taking over Poland, that's laughable as an example. You are proposing a treaty, claiming it is internationally recognised, as the basis for relations between 2 states, one of whom is Jordan, which negates 242 and the rest. Germany's takeover of Poland was not recognised and was a conquest, not a treaty transfer.

Please come back when you have orederd your thoughts.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday December 15, 2011, 7:34 am
Hi Alisa,

I am not perfectly versed in every agreement. That is part of why I do not consider myself a great expert. My comment about being the best I have seen here, however, continues to be supported by your total dismissal of such details as the links between the existence of an enforcement-clause, enforceability and the legitimacy of law. You have also totally dismissed the customary enforcement-clause of any agreement. If you want an example, consider making a purchase. If you refuse to pay, the shop does not have to give you the product no matter how many times you said you were making a purchase and wanted it. Likewise, one side's obligations in any agreement are purchased with the other sides adherence to its obligations.

My original statement regarding the annex, to which you responded with the current failure of reading-comprehension:
"I remember discussing the annex on Care2 before: The annex itself is not recognized. Rules which dictate that such an annex under the conditions where it occurred are to be recognized, however, are. The lack of recognition is a direct result of a double-standard. "
It's pretty clear that this is an annex which "occur"s, not one which is written, and was a response to your comment about the annexation of territory.
"If you consider the East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza as part of the State of Israel, then Israel better start providing citizenship to the population living there. In fact, there has been no annexation or attempt to annex the West Bank nor Gaza. Israel attempted to annex East Jerusalem, but this is not recognised by any country in the world, except for Israel. "
I could understand where the error would come from, though. You don't seem to be in the habit of reading my posts carefully, or apparently your own for that matter. For example, here is a quote of my first reference to the fictitious treatise s that you can easily search for it (control+f on most browsers):

"According to Aristotle's 5th Treatise on Quantum Thermodynamics, and this is a direct quote, "Alisa Loring is a moron". Now don't ask me to dig up that source for you. You weren't courteous enough to do the same for me."

Here's something I find offensive: "You wouldn't start giving me a lesson in the fundamentals in order so that you could lead me to the point where I erred in my position." Not only should you not presume to know how I would or would not respond in general, but you should not assume that I would behave nearly as arrogantly stupid as you did. I actually would go through the fundamentals of a subject with you, as I have with many others here on Care2 and elsewhere. If you want to start with statistics and probability to learn the fundamentals of logic, constructing Occam's Razer from grade-school level arithmetic, I would be happy to start there. If you need help with the arithmetic, I could begin by explaining to you what a number is.

The West Bank was given to Palestinians six years before? Where was the state? The land was given over to local government, but self-government is not the same as sovereignty. While they ran their own lives, they could not engage in international diplomacy, raise a separate army outside of Jordanian control, or act in any way of which the Jordanian government disapproved. This "ceding" amounted to setting up the region as a largely autonomous province, not actually giving up sovereignty over it.

The contradictions between Article 1 and Resolution 242 come from two place:
First, the land was handed over in a peace-treaty, and the transfer of jurisdiction was a central point in that treaty. Without it, the whole thing would not have happened. Demanding that it be returned now, after peace was signed, amounts to failure to recognise a non-separable part of the treaty, and thereby declaring the whole thing illegitimate. Explicitly demanding the end of peace between two countries is not the behaviour of an organisation which is meant to "To maintain international peace and security". Second, as there is no precedent in international law, was not an act "in conformity with international law".

The council condemned the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait because the U.N. is intended to discourage wars of aggression. In fact, I remember reading something, I think in on of the Hague conventions, declaring it illegal to recognise a peace-treaty in which land is gained by a country engaging in a war where it was the aggressor and motivated by the prospect of conquest. Israel's campaign in 1967 was defensive. Yes, they condemned the use of force, like they usually do. No, that does not make land-transfer following war illegal.

The Council did reaffirm the inadmissibility of territorial gain by war:
www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/89-92/89-92_12.pdf
with a little footnote there which reads:
"In connection with the situation in the occupied Arab territories; see resolution 681 (1990), second preambular para." This is not a separate case. It's almost shocking that, after lecturing me about not reading the whole text of an agreement. Almost, because you already demonstrated that you don't read carefully. Like I said, it has never been applied elsewhere.

My statement was that the Israeli government may place whatever restrictions it wants on itself, whether through its legislative or judicial branches. I didn't say anything about it having a right to place whatever restrictions it wants on others, even its own citizens.

Mandatory rule is not the same as colonisation. In mandatory rule, land falls under the sovereignty of one country, becoming a part of it temporarily, until the local population is ready for independence. In colonialism, land is conquered for the sake of migration from the conquering country to it. That said, colonialism is still alive and well today. Have you ever been to Saint Martin or Sint Maartin? Wonderful place. Island divided between French and Dutch colonies.

I don't expect Palestinians to be loyal to Israel. In fact, Palestinian nationalism is a definitive part of the Palestinian identity and always has been, even before those forty-four (not sixty) years. Israeli Arabs, who have been under Israeli rule for sixty, are not generally nationalist but resemble Palestinians in every other way. They get full citizenship-rights and, arguably, have greater rights than Jews. (They are not conscripted, but can volunteer for military service if they want.) Israel didn't have to offer them citizenship in 1948. For all it knew the birth-rates could have changed things right from there. In fact, without the Jews who fled Muslim-majority countries in 1967 and following the 1948-war, that citizenship would have vastly changed the demographics of the country. They got citizenship anyway.

The links I gave were the ones which I had already given to show where I get my ideas from, demonstrating that your claim that I do not do so is a pile of steaming faeces. Once again, I was not calling you a moron before. Now I'm calling you a moron, but as a judgement based on your posts, not having anything to do with my position on the subject at hand.

The temporary time is indefinite. It is supposed to last until Palestinians are ready for peaceful stable statehood, not a day less or more. They are not ready yet. Yes, it has been 44 years and that implies that in 1967 Palestinian culture was not conducive to peace and stability. Cultural changes take generations. I do not believe it will be permanent because I do not believe Palestinians to be intrinsically incapable of peace. They are mostly decent people. I hope things accelerate soon, but if not then it may well take another generation or two. It's too bad you're so impatient, but preventing a mass-slaughter of Palestinians in the civil war we would see erupt upon their independence if it happened today is more important than your sensibilities.

You seem to enjoy making up international law from partial readings of texts written by agencies which are not actually empowered to produce it. You still ignore the difference between a unilateral declaration and a binding agreement, and seem to have no concept of the link between law and law-enforcement. I still don't claim to be an expert, I'm just vastly better than you at it, and that says almost nothing.

Hi John,
Surrender is a treaty. The terms are very one-sided, but it is a peace-treaty nonetheless. Traditionally, surrender runs along the lines of "The victors agree to stop fighting the war and not restart it. In exchange, they get what they demand and the defeated side also agrees to stop fighting the war and not restart it." Generally the difference in damage to each side makes the agreement to stop fighting actually even out the terms so it's not just "the victors get what they want". The part where both sides agree to stop fighting and not start it again is the definitive aspect of a peace-treaty. Poland was handed over by treaty.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 15, 2011, 12:56 pm
There you go ahead with that name calling Stephen. First moron, now stupid. This is what I find offensive is that you have done nothing but blather on arrogantly attempting to use your interpretation of international law that has already been in existence and applied. It is accepted by all countries, except Israel. Yet, you want to keep on trying to weasel out of the application of the existent law . This law is not going to be argued before the courts with you coming up with these games of semantics to have Israel avoid culpability for their actions.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 15, 2011, 3:06 pm
Stephen, that bit about Poland being "handed over was a joke, right? That you do not know that the Polish government never surrendered and moved to London to continue the fight against the Germans says a lot about your poor grasp of history and about your propensity for making stuff up that you know nothing about. You show similar traits on the IP issue.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday December 15, 2011, 7:06 pm
Hi Alisa,

Actually, first stupid, then moron. Read. This is what I find offensive, that you fail to read what I write before responding, and then blather on arrogantly claiming knowledge of law while demonstrating your lack thereof. These laws have been accepted by al governments, except regarding Israel, where a double-standard is applied. You even inadvertently demonstrated this with one of your sources, and yet you continue to pretend that you were right all along. When you cannot find anything that looks like it would back you up on an issue, you thoroughly ignore it. Do you even know what role enforcement-clauses play in law, and what an unenforceable agreement is?

Hi John,
Yup, the Polish government went to Londong and continued to fight from there all right. What happened to the Polish army when its government left? The government did organize a new force of 80,000 ... to defend France. The government may have fled, but that just means that it no longer spoke for the people it left behind. The Poles surrendered. Yes, there was a resistance, but not enough to stop Germany from replacing Polish law with its own in what had formerly been Poland. Perhaps legally there is an argument to be made that Poland was never really conquered by Germany in that war, but the facts on the ground were that German law applied there and not the Polish law that existed before the war. It wasn't intended as a temporary occupation either: Check out the war-rhetoric about "Liebesraum". The old Polish government may have refused to sign any papers, but it had to flee to avoid it.

Tell me, what do you think would have happened if Germany won the war, or at least negotiated peace from a position of strength? After all that about "Liebstraum", needing more living-space, do you really think it would have handed all of Poland back just because the government never signed surrender? Do you honestly belive that made any difference at all? Poland exists today because the Allies defeated the Axis, not because the Nazis cared about any ink on some old convention.

This is another problem I have found here: Neither you nor Alisa speak in terms of the facts on the ground. I guess as far as you're concerned, the U.S. doesn't really rule the Native reservations within its territory because by agreement they legally retained "tribal sovereignty". Of course, the minor detail that they don't actually have an army comparable to what the U.S. could send to back themselves up should the U.S. decide to alter the agreement doesn't come into the law. I would say they don't have any sovereignty because they cannot enforce any claim to it, but of course that would just be another matter of my "poor grasp of history and" my "propensity for making stuff up that" I "know nothing about" because, like the Polish government, they "never surrendered".
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 15, 2011, 11:10 pm
Stephen - You stating something does not necessarily make it true. You whole argument has been based on denying international law. What you base the dismissal of these legal principles on is absolutely nothing. You don't provide anything, nor any legal ruling to support what you are stating.

Your reference to " the existence of an enforcement-clause, enforceability and the legitimacy of law" and my alleged "total dismissal of such details" again demonstrates how little time you have spent actually acquiring any knowledge in regard to international law.

It seems that you are basing the legitimacy of "law" whether domestic or international on the ability of enforcement, specifically within any enforcement clause contained within these laws or legal agreements. International law is actually enforced, even though in many cases imperfectly, but is enforced through a complete different mechanism that the enforcement of domestic law.

International law does not have a unified system of sanctions. There are instances where force is permitted, justified and legal, but is rarely used. What powers international law in regard to compliance and obedience are the "network of relationships existing primary, if not exclusively, between states recognizing certain common principles and ways of doing things" (The International Community, Facing the Challenge of Globalisation, 1998, p. 266).

In domestic law, the law is above the people it rules wherease in the scope of international law, the law exists "between states". There is no one body which rules over all states, the body actually exists between all states which are all considered equal in legal theory. International law is "primarily formulated by international agreements, which create rules binding upon the signatories, and customary rules, which are basically state practices recognised by the community at large as laying down patters of conduct that have to be complied with." (Malcolm N. Shaw, QC, International law, 5th Edition, 2003, p. 23)

A regulatory framework is required for states to operate within and these rules are international law in which there is a common frame of reference. There is no international police body that acts when international law is broken. Much of the enforcement of and compliance to international law comes directly from the response of the international community at large based on this regulatory common framework we refer to as international law.

Enforcement is actually based upon eventual compliance and obedience to the various legal documents international laws and principles are enshrined within. Much of international law is enforced and implemented through reciprocity, collective action and essentially shaming states into compliance.

Thus the legitimacy of International law is not threatened by the absence of an "enforcement clause". "However, some treaties may not expressly include such enforcement mechanisms. Especially in situations where the international law in question is not explicitly written out in a treaty, one can question how this unwritten law can be enforced. In an international system where there is no overarching authoritative enforcer, punishment for non-compliance functions differently. States are more likely to fear tactics used by other states, such as reciprocity, collective action, and shaming." (How is International Law Enforced, The Levin Institute, 2011)

Since I continually was referring to the fact that you had failed to read the Annexes as part of your claim that your knowledge in regard to International law is "the best I have seen", I would think that your response to the Annexes was referring to that. Prior to your statement of "remembering discussing the annex on Care2 before", I addressed this specifically upon your insistence that I provide you with something that is an essential part of the Oslo Accords that anyone who had basic knowledge of the conflict would know. I referred to this many times, yet you expect me to know the exact nature of your mention of "discussing the annex on Care2 before" which apparently has to do with the annexation of land. How would I possibly know this without being told? Maybe if you weren't so vague in what you refer to, I wouldn't have misinterpreted your comment.

As for your Aristotle's 5th Treatise and your moron comment. I am not claiming to have knowledge of the Aristotle's 5th Treatise on Quantum Thermodynamics. You on the other hand have indicated that you actually have an understanding of the conflict and international law, yet you expect others to provide you with basic information. This basic information is information that one claiming to have knowledge and and an understanding of the conflict would know. This is similar to when someone posts the "land without a people" narrative which anyone who had spent more than 3 seconds looking into the conflict would know is a discredity hoax.

I see now you are again starting with the name calling with your latest " I would behave nearly as arrogantly stupid as you did". It seems when you have no way to actually counter an argument you wish the points of contention away and call people names. And you are, what three?

I have looked at some of your posts while attempting to locate this one (as I had failed to check off the little box on the bottom). Where have you shown anyone anything except your gross misinterpretation of international law and the history of the conflct? As for arrogance, you certainly win the prize on that one. For someone so woefully misinformed, you seem to think that everything you post are pearls of wisdom. The problem is what I am posting are not opinion driven, but actually are based exclusively on the principles of International law. You also fail to provide anything to support your arguments which are nonsensical. You approach this as Perry Mason with the aha moment, while these principles have been honoured for most part without an enforceable clause. Your understanding of International law equates it to the realm of domestic law. Anything you read regarding the nature of international law that is actually credible and not from a blog, will tell you that your interpretation of this is patently false. International law is based mostly enforced through a state's standing within the International community.

You are now asking me when King Hussein (Jordan) ceded control of the West Bank to the PLO? Again, anyone who can actually have even a superficial understanding of the conflict would know this.

"Since the king was constantly aware of this predicament, he was finally forced to declare the adminstrative and legal spearation of Jordan from the West Bank in July 1988. in this way he recognized the status quo and had in effect ceded the West Bank.. (Moshe Shemesh, Arab politics, Palestinian nationalism and the Six Day War, p. 260)

"King Hussein of Jordan ceded to the PLO his claims to the West Bank, which had been occupied by Israel since 1967. In November 1988, the PLO declared the independence of a Palestinian state based on the occupied West Bank but, at the same time, it also recognised Israel's right to exist in the expectation that this would facilitate negotiations." ( Ian Frederick William Beckett, Modern insurgencies and counter-insurgencies: guerrillas and their opponents since 1750, p. 234)

It seems that you are confusing the Jordan-Israel Peace which took place in1994 with King Hussein ceding Jordan’s claim to the West Bank to the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestininian people.” which occured in 1988.

"Regarding the principled consideration, Arab unity between any two or more countries is an option of any Arab people. This is what we believe. Accordingly, we responded to the wish of the Palestinian people's representatives for unity with Jordan in 1950. From this premise, we respect the wish of the PLO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us as an independent Palestinian state. We say that while we fully understand the situation, nevertheless, Jordan will remain the proud bearer of the message of the Great Arab Revolt, adhering to its principles, believing in one Arab destiny, and committed to joint Arab action." (King Hussein Speech, July 31, 1988)

Stephen, until you actually know the history and applicable law, I don't need you to explain anything to me. You can apply anything you want, but it isn't not going to change the law. in addition, I am still waiting for you to provide me with some type of support for most of your arguments. You still have failed to provide anything other than your say so.

You can continue to build your argument on what you feel is contrary in nature in regard to Article 1 and Resolution 242. What you find contradictory doesn't matter. What the international community accepts is. The International community, EVERY NATION except Israel supports the UN Security Council Resolution 242. Also, the inadmissability of the acquisition of land through force comes from International law which support 242. All peace negotiations, treaties, etc. have been built on that premise. The land has never been turned over in a peace treaty and to state that it has is ludicrous. The whole peace treaty has been based upon Israel turning back over control of the OPT to the PA. The Security Council Resolution 242 is the most referred to document in the Oslo Accords. The whole peace process from the beginning to now are based upon 242 or the "land for peace" formula. To state that this is inadmissable, even though it is part of larger principles of International law is not up for debate. 242 is not what introduces the inadmissability of the acquisition of land through force, rather it re-affirms the principle which predates 242. That is why it is in the preamble and states "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace".

So you can continue to argue this, but there is no foundation to support it. Unless you want to claim that all International law is non existant and unenforceable, you are stuck with it. Nations comply with international law. When they fail to obey, they are faced with reaction of the international community. That is how for most part international law is enforced, through pressure upon non complying states.

" Explicitly demanding the end of peace between two countries is not the behaviour of an organisation which is meant to "To maintain international peace and security". Second, as there is no precedent in international law, was not an act "in conformity with international law"."

And where exactly are you getting this and where is this even demanding remotely the end of peace?

"In connection with the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, the Council condemned the invasion and, subsequently, the continued occupation of Kuwait by the military forces of Iraq.60 In connection with the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the members of the Council condemned publicly and unreservedly the use of force and called upon all regular and irregular military forces involved to act in accordance with this principle.61 In connection with the situation in Georgia, the members of the Council recalled the commitment by the parties not to resort to the use of force.62 In a number of instances, the Council reaffirmed the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of States and asked that they be fully respected.63 The Council also reaffirmed the"inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, the unacceptability of territorial gains or changes
brought about by violence,65 the inviolability of international boundaries (In connection with the situation between Iraq and
Kuwait, see resolutions 687 (1991), paras. 2 and 4; and 773 (1992), para. 4; and the presidential statements of 17 June 1992 (S/24113); 11 March 1992 (S/23699); and 23 November 1992 (S/24836). In connection with the situation in the former Yugoslavia, see resolution 757 (1992), third preambular para. In connection with the situation in Georgia, see the statement of 10 September 1992 (S/24542).

So you still refute that this had nothing to do with the iandmissability of the acquisition of land through force even though I provide you with documentation which demonstrates this actual principle. Again, you can certainly argue this all you want, but it is an accepted principle of international law. What you claim really doesn't matter. You didn't provide me with anything that refutes or contradicts what was stated when this issue was presented to the international community.

You claim that the 1967 war was defensive. Go argue that with Menachem Begin or with the historical record. I am not going to sit here continually provide material that supports what I say and have you claim it isn't applicable or isn't true. In fact, you are making these statements with little or essentially no foundation.

"The Council did reaffirm the inadmissibility of territorial gain by war: www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/89-92/89-92_12.pdf with a little footnote there which reads:

"In connection with the situation in the occupied Arab territories; see resolution 681 (1990), second preambular para." This is not a separate case. It's almost shocking that, after lecturing me about not reading the whole text of an agreement. Almost, because you already demonstrated that you don't read carefully. Like I said, it has never been applied elsewhere."

Well, I did read that in fact I read the whole section. And again, you are claiming that a portion of the sentence posted refers to only Palestine whereas this is exactly how it appears.

"The Council also reaffirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, 64 the unacceptability of territorial gains or changes brought about by violence, 65 the inviolability of international boundaries, 66 and the inadmissibility of any encroachment upon the principle of territorial integrity. 67

The Council also reaffirmed that the taking of territory by force or any practice of “ethnic cleansing” is unlawful and unacceptable, and would not be permitted to affect the outcome of the negotiations on constitutional arrangements for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 70

64 In connection with the situation in the occupied Arab territories; see resolution 681 (1990), second preambular
para.

65 In connection with the situation in the former Yugoslavia; see resolutions 713 (1991), eighth preambular para.; 752 (1992), para. 1; and 757 (1992), third preambular para.

66 In connection whttp://www.zcommunications.org/no-war-in-gaza-by-margaret-mayerith the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, see resolutions 687 (1991), paras. 2 and 4; and 773 (1992), para. 4; and the presidential statements of 17 June 1992 (S/24113); 11 March 1992 (S/23699); and 23 November 1992 (S/24836). In connection with the situation in the former Yugoslavia, see resolution 757 (1992), third preambular para. In connection with the situation in Georgia, see the statement of 10 September
1992 (S/24542)

70 Resolution 787 (1992), para. 2.

For example, the UN Charter is explicit in its recognition of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As a result, Iraq's 1990 invasion and occupation of Kuwait was not allowed to stand, with the Security Council authorizing the use of force to enforce its resolutions demanding Iraqi withdrawal. (Zunes, Stephen. 2003. Israel, the United States, and the United Nations. Tikkun 18(3): 24.)

Another example of inadmissability of the acquisition of land through force is Security Council Resolution 582 of 24 February 1998 in regard to Iran and Iraq.

"Recalling the provisions ofthe Charter and in particular the obligation ofall Member States to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such at manner that international peace and security andjustiee are not endangered.

Noting that both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for the Prohibition ofthe Use in
War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare signed at Geneva on 7 June 1925.

Emphasízing the principle ofthe inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.

The rest is kind of based on the insinuation that this is mandatory rule whereas Israel has given every indication that it is based on colonialization. It is not to allow the population to be ready for indpenedence, it is to create facts on the ground making it virtually impossible for a viable state. This again is another point in which your opinion is a lone voice along with Israel, whereas International law, ICC and Israel's own High Court recognize it as an occupation. The Israeli High Court doesn't refer to it as an adminstrative occupation, but refers to it as a belligerent occupation. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to agree with the law of Israel's own court. To you, it seems law is only applicable when it supports something you agree with, any other time, you dismiss even though it is the accepted standard of law. These are also principles that Israel is a signatory to.

Part of the popuation, anyone who remained within Israel after 1948 that was Palestinian was " one way or another controlling the population for almost six decades "

"While activists know of the iron Israeli control through military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza today, many are not aware that for two decades, Israel kept its Palestinian ‘citizens’ – Israeli passport holders – under strict military rule. Developed from the 1945 British emergency laws, Israel implemented military law from 1948-1966 only for its Arab citizens, forbidding movement beyond certain zones, requiring work permits and employing strict control over political activity." (Isabelle Humphries, A Little Inoovation, 2007)

"In the country's early years (1948-1966), Arab localities were under military rule and Arab-populated areas. (Ephraim Yuchtman-Yaar, Yohanan Peres, Between consent and dissent: democracy and peace in the Israeli mind, p. 20, 2000)

I am not going to read all of your links. Apply them to a direct point you are making to provide support to your argument. Here you go with the moron crap. It is completely unacceptable and very telling of a person's character when he finds the need to name call. It doesn nothing at all than to reflect poorly upon you. People certainly aren't calling me a moron, in fact, the emails I get seem to be pretty supportive of what I post.

Where am I making up International law Stephen. I have done nothing but cite International law. You obviously do not respect nor find International law which applies to the conflict legal. That is your opinion, but the fact, not opinion is that these laws are applied towards the conflict and occupation. The international concensus supports this. Whether or not you feel it is moronic that they are applying the same laws which I have posted is irrelevant.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 15, 2011, 11:30 pm
The point is that your whole intent is to continually bring up "moron" in reference to a person where you certainly could have used something else to make your point, shows how you will do anything to attempt to belittle the person.

It really doesn't make a difference that your "According to Aristotle's 5th Treatise on Quantum Thermodynamics" is where it it is stated that "Alisa Loring is a moron", to make your argument speaks more to your character and maturity than whether or not I am a moron.

Then we have this:

" Now I'm calling you a moron"

" I would behave nearly as arrogantly stupid as you did"

which now clearly has you specifically name calling rather than play semantic games to do so. That is not only immature, but also demonstrates how weak your arguments are.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 16, 2011, 4:21 am
"You understand pretty quickly what is going on, but it's not so clear what you are supposed to do about it," he said. "We never received an order telling us what to do when a Jewish boy throws stones at a Palestinian. Are we allowed to detain him or not? There's a gap between the battalion commander's instructions and what happens on the ground.

"It's the same people who bring you cake when you're on guard at 2 A.M.," he added. "What, are you going to arrest their kid when he throws stones the next day?"

As Haaretz reported on Thursday, the "new instructions" the prime minister issued this week to deal with Jewish rioters in the West Bank had for the most part already been in force on paper. But authority to act in principle does not always translate into clear orders out in the field. What counts there are the personal relations between settler leaders and IDF commanders.

A reservist platoon commander who served in the South Hebron Hills about three months ago said he had discussed the possibility of friction between settlers and Palestinians with his commanders beforehand. But nothing prepared him for the confrontation at the Mitzpeh Eshtamoa outpost, where settlers and Palestinians were in a face-off over grazing ground.

"We stood as a buffer between the Palestinian shepherds and the settlers and they [the settlers] started arguing with us," he related. "They said awful things to me: '[Ariel] Sharon evacuated Gaza, he got what was coming to him, don't worry, God will see to you too. Why do you come for reserve duty? You're a disgrace as soldiers.' They ranted and raved. We didn't know what to do, we were in shock. We thought the problem would be with the Palestinians, but the problem is with the Jews.

"There were 15 settlers swearing at us, not three. This is an entire community whose agenda is to treat soldiers like that. Even the chief security officer told us, 'listen, that's the way it is. In a few days they'll puncture my car tires.'

"These guys [the settlers] are out of control. I guard them, I'm responsible for protecting them and I know one day they'll sabotage my car. That's what is going on here," the reservist concluded.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-soldiers-problem-in-west-bank-isn-t-palestinains-it-s-jews-1.401683
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 16, 2011, 5:38 am
It's dreadful, simply dreadful. But the world is only just awakening from its slumber and is beginning to see what's going on.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday December 16, 2011, 12:13 pm
Hi Alisa,

Yes, based on your statements here, I am forced to conclude that your intellectual capabilities are only just barely sufficient to function in society. That is why I am calling you a moron now. You're right that I could have used another example to demonstrate that I could conclude absolutely anything using your line of logic, but I have found that a conclusion which personally insults the intended audience is most effective in demonstrating the reductio ad absurdium argument. Evidently, even that did not suffice for you to recognize what was going on.

What would demonstrate weakness in my arguments would be logical holes or factual errors in them. While my question of whether the withholding of funds would actually violate the agreement has been answered satisfactorily, nobody here has demonstrated factual errors or logical holes in the rest, and my overall point does not actually depend upon that first one. Your fixation on your own stupidity to the point where you have totally ignored vital points of the discussion implies that you cannot produce any such errors, and demonstrates weakness not in my arguments, but in yours.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday December 16, 2011, 12:30 pm
In Tamimi's case, I believe his death resulted from recklessness and was entirely avoidable. While the killing itself is painful and terrible, I hope the fact that Israel is investigating the case should provide something approaching consolation for his family. I hope the soldiers involved are dealt with properly, that procedures be put in place and practiced to avoid launching canisters like that when anyone is dangerously close, and that future canisters be padded or made of something softer to avoid a repetition of this tragedy. That said, when protesters like those with Tamimi throw stones at soldiers, they use weapons just as dangerous as gas canisters in roughly the same manner. They should refrain from doing that, or at least recognize that assaulting armed soldiers with potentially lethal weapons is dangerous and accept that they put themselves in harm's way.

Regarding the settlers, I see three problems:
First, the soldiers act as a military force and not a police force even during a police-action, which is what they do when on patrol in the area. they should be empowered to enforce the law as a matter of principle, not only as a matter of specific orders.
Second, even if they are empowered to do that on paper, they accept gifts from the locals. When policing, they should remain impartial, so those relations they mentioned with the settlers should not be allowed to develop.
Third, and this is just a matter with the article rather than the situation itself. The title "problem-in-west-bank-isn-t-palestinains-it-s-jews" is misleading. What they said was that the problem isn't only Palestinians, and that Jews can also cause trouble. The focus of the article is the soldiers' lack of clear instruction regarding what to do when Israeli citizens cause trouble, so in context the problem is with Israelis, but when reading the title any reader would not have that context. As there is an assumed context for "Problem in the West Bank", the title is (perhaps by accident, though I have seen this many times in Haaretz) misleading.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 16, 2011, 1:42 pm
Stephen:

I still see nothing to support any of your arguments which are a complete distortion of international law. Your understanding of it lacks. To believe International law is enforced as domestic law certainly demonstrates you have never even bothered look at International law. So while you keep on calling me names and switching subjects, you still have not actually provided anything which supports your statements.

So if it makes me feel better to call me names, go on right ahead. I am sure you have to also compensate in other areas such as driving a big car.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 16, 2011, 3:00 pm
Stephen, can you actuallt read? This is direct quote from the article:--

"We thought the problem would be with the Palestinians, but the problem is with the Jews. ".

Yet you attempt to finagle the board by posting this:--

"What they said was that the problem isn't only Palestinians, and that Jews can also cause trouble".

Are you just lying or can you truly not read - or perhaps you can read but simply interpret what you read in a perverse way?
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 16, 2011, 3:30 pm
Stephen. You attempt to talk about "the facts on the ground." and Ms Loring and I talk about law. No amount of for-Jews-only colonies on the WB will make them legal. And as we have established that the WB is not a part of the Zionist Entity.

Are you honestly trying to say that German occupation of Poland would've become legal in the face of a legitimate government continuing the fight from exile? That Norway, the Netherlands and the rest would've become "part of" Germany without an agreement by the governments concerned? Even the Germans didn't try that one on with the installation of the traitor Vidkun Quisling in Norway.

Really, Stephen, you admit you're not a lawyer and ir shows. I am not one either, but it is so easy to pick holes in your assertions.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday December 16, 2011, 3:59 pm
Stephen: I don't think that Haaretz is misleading, I think that you are misleading. You want to win an argument by manipulating International law. With you it is a trick here and a trick there, but you seem to have no concept of ethical behaviour, humanity and morality. Instead, and this is why I insinuated that you were a Shyster, is because you are like the criminal defense attorney of Israel. This is nothing to be proud of. You remind me of a very silly Dershowitz debating Finkelstein or Chomsky.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 17, 2011, 1:19 am
From Palestine to Israel: A photographic record of destruction

By Rachael Cloughton

Tuesday, 8 November 2011 at 4:11 pm

http://blogs. independent. co.uk/2011/ 11/08/from- palestine- to-israel- a-photographic- record-of- destruction- and-state/



Formation is an assembly of photographs taken from various Israeli state archives, documenting the period between 1947-50. The images have been reorganised in an attempt to detach them from the national assumptions that previously lead the photograph’s meaning. Instead, they disclose the reality of the events they document.

A re-write of the captions accompanying the 214 photographs in the exhibition is instrumental to achieving this alternative ‘civil’ archive. Replacing the former IDF denotations are descriptions by the project’s curator – Ariella Azoulay, an Israeli Jew and director of Photo-Lexic, an International Research Centre at Tel Aviv University.

The newly written captions now emphasise what the image contains, not the ideologies it has been used to propagate, or the false significations created to justify occupation and State formation. As a corollary, muted emergency claims nullified by the dominant Zionist narrative that has manipulated the photograph’s reading for the past 60 years, come to the fore. The IDF captions are ‘inadequate to describe what they show, they usually also serve to make what appears in them look like something else,’ according to Azoulay. When the military perspective is shed the catastrophe documented within the image becomes evident.

One photograph titled ‘Afula’ was previously described to depict ‘Arab citizens harvesting crops in the fields; Haganah members guarding them,’ by the IDF. Azoulay here re-writes the past to describe what really happened. The Arab citizens are not gathering crops in ‘Afula’, she holds that they are digging a hole to bury those murdered during fighting or massacre. ‘The generality imposed on this photograph enables it to illustrate accurately repetitive Palestinian testimonies about the general recurrent procedure: a number of village men are taken under threat to bury those who has previously been shot…in secret or before their eyes,’ the caption asserts.

The reality of the event at ‘Afula’ exists visibly within the image; the guards are equipped with guns and are wearing masks to shield against the stench of rotting flesh that surrounds them – unlikely garb for the protectors of farmers. Yet, the dominance of the previous IDF narrative has diverted attention away from what is apparent.
 

Jelica R. (157)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 12:26 pm
John, thanks for the link to photographs of destruction. Also, I wanted to post about murder of Mustafa Tamimi. Here is the video: Video: Israeli army violence follows funeral of Mustafa Tamimi, Nabi Saleh 11. 12. 2011.

Stephen, one for you; find contradiction between UN SC Res. 242 and the Charter of the United Nations, which you claim to exist.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 11:03 pm
I'll be back on Care2 in about a week.

Until then, Have fun!
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 11:10 pm
Just a couple quick responses to what I already see here:

Alisa, I don't think they are enforced like domestic law. They do, however, have to be enforced. The enforcement-mechanism, which you consistently ignore, is normally written into the treaty or convention. Also, read my response to John below.

John, taken out of context (as titles definitively are), yes the phrase is misleading. In context, it is another matter. Yes, it would have become legal. The convention on sovereignty over territory is that the law will reflect the facts on the ground. That is the only enforceable way. While it may seem useless, much of the purpose of international law is to clearly give a rulebook by which all states may play to avoid accidental escalation of conflicts. Read my response to Terrence (far) above for the reasoning behind that.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 11:13 pm
Hi Jelica,

I have listed three contradictions above. Read them.

Here is a quick reminds (not the full reasoning, but enough for a guide):
1. No basis in international law. (Violates Article 1)
2, Continued demand for its enforcement amounts to failure to recognize the Israeli/Jordanian and Israeli/Egyptian peace treaties. (Violates Article 1)
3. Demand for change of the security-situation within a region entirely under the sovereignty of one state. (Violates Article 2)
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 19, 2011, 12:50 am
Oh Stephen.

"Yes, it would have become legal. "

But it didn't, did it? No country was prepared to recognise the conquering of Poland and the rest of Europe unless thay were puppet governments installed by the Nazis. The true governments fought on, either in London or under occupation as best they could until, in the famous and tear-provoking words of Churchill's, from his "fight on the beaches" speech, " the New World, with all its power and might [came] to the rescue of the old".
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 19, 2011, 3:45 am
Stephen:

Obviously, you don't understand. The enforcement of International law is through diplomatic measures, states pressure on the offending party, etc. This is used much more than using force, or sanctions which are a lot harder to implement.


"International law has no international police force to oversee obedience to the international legal standards to which States agree or that develop as international standards of behaviour. Similarly, there is no compulsory enforcement mechanism for the settlement of disputes. However, there are an increasing number of specialised courts, tribunals and treaty monitoring bodies as well as an International Court of Justice: see pp 12 & 29. National laws and courts are often an important means through which international law is implemented in practice. In some instances, the Security Council can authorise the use of coercive economic sanctions or even armed force.

"In general, international law is enforced through methods such as national implementation, diplomatic negotiation or public pressure, mediation, conciliation, arbitration (a process of resolving disputes other than by agreement), judicial settlement (including specialised tribunals)." (International law, Legal Issues in Plain Language, Legal Information Access Centre (LIAC), Issue 69)"

"Absent a centralized enforcement mechanism, aggrieved states may have no recourse but to appeal to sympathetic nations that are offended by the wrong suffered by the aggrieved. nation. Pressure from other states is one of the few viable methods of legal enforcement. "(Lea Brilmayer, The Odd Advantage of Reliable Enemies, Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, 1991).
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 19, 2011, 5:11 am
I think he's a lost cause. He truly doesn't get it.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 19, 2011, 5:19 am
Also Stephen, I would like to note that again all of your responses to John, Jelica to me, are statements of your own personal opinion. You haven't provided anything to substantiate your claims, yet I have posted several times of items of law which specifically addresses the issue of enforcement.

It seems that your argument is based continually upon your imiplementation of arguments of logic which fly completely against what laws and rules are already written. You also keep on speaking to the necessity of an clause of enforcement to be enshrined in International law which through what I have posted shows that this is patently false. I have tried to explain to you that International law for most part is based upon diplomatic measures, pressure from other states and also the most important legitimacy which all states strive to achieve.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday December 19, 2011, 8:06 pm
Also, I would want Stephen to give us a basis upon which he is making these statements to Jelica. Just stating it with no explanation whatsoever what he is basing it upon, nor anything to support it makes his statements just more blather. I am sure he will return and respond with to us with his reasoning, of course stated with an air of superiority, but before he gets to cocky, he should remember that he was arguing about the withheld funds without even reading the Annexes and I would imagine the Oslo Accords to begin with. Considering we have had to spell everything out point by point at least he could give us an inkling what his reasoning is.
 

Jelica R. (157)
Monday December 19, 2011, 8:23 pm
"1. No basis in international law. (Violates Article 1)"

Since UN Charter is based on numerous International Laws and Treaties (Hague Conventions, Geneva Convention, Law of the Sea, ... ) which were accepted by the member states in 1947, there is no need to enlist all applicable laws, up to a specific article, and turn a humanitarian concerns into a court-like nitpicking. The Security Council never list laws, they always refer to UN Charter.

"2, Continued demand for its enforcement amounts to failure to recognize the Israeli/Jordanian and Israeli/Egyptian peace treaties. (Violates Article 1)"

Israeli/Jordanian and Israeli/Egyptian peace treaties were signed Oct 26, 1994 and Mar 26, 1979 respectively; or 27 and 12 years AFTER the Resolution 242. In 1967 Israel occupied parts of Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian territories. Are you suggesting that The security Council should have denied the occupied states their legal and internationally recognised right to self-defence against the occupier and surrender of their territory? Well, this is against the UN Charter.

"3. Demand for change of the security-situation within a region entirely under the sovereignty of one state. (Violates Article 2)"

The occupied Jordanian, Egyptian and Palestinian territories were not considered to be "under the sovereignty of one state" back in the 1967 any more then than they are "one state" today. Numerous UN Resolutions, nations and politicians continuously emphasize that fact. Ever heard of "pre-1967 borders"?
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 20, 2011, 1:25 am
Jelica. When he comes back, he'll nitpick again and again. And he won't substantiate anything. Did you see him trying to say that Poland "would have" become "legally" a part of Germany because of force majeure? It's all fantasy. He claimed that the simple fact of defeat "and surrender" made Poland a legal part of Germany. When I pointed out that Poland never surrendered but the government fought on from London and that the occupation was not recognised by any other than puppet states, he just tried to brush it aside.

It's the same on IP threads. He says what he thinks it ought to be according to his preconceptions and prejudices.
 

Jelica R. (157)
Tuesday December 20, 2011, 10:47 am
I know, John. Nevertheless, his vague and superficial comments should be objected point by point. Othervise, some semi-knowledgeable readers might assume that he is right and nobody disagrees with him enough to contradict him.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 20, 2011, 2:02 pm
You're right Jelica. It's for the others, the "lurkers" as we used to call them on the Guardian TalkBoards, that we argue against these travesties, not for those who don't want to be convinced. There was even one guy on the Guardian boards who was paid to post. Quite incredible.
 

Jelica R. (157)
Tuesday December 20, 2011, 2:10 pm
:-) Same here, John.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 20, 2011, 2:54 pm
Many are paid to post. i will wait until our young Mr. Dershowitz returns and let him qualify what he actually means. As usual, his comments are very vague and really do not give us any insight into what he is actually implying and what his claims of violations of Charter 1 specifically are.
 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Wednesday December 21, 2011, 10:00 am
I think the problem of Stephen is that he can't look at the subject of this post (illegally holding funds collected by Israel on behalf of PA) as a judge. He is more like a lawyer who will justify anything or crime that had been committed by someone he represented as long as the guilty is paying him. If the other side will hire him,he will certainly change his mind 100% and start attacking the same person whom he represented in the beginning. I knew from the beginning that he wants to dig for an excuse to justify Israel's decision as a person who supports Israel even if he is sure it is wrong. If he took the other side he would simply had said that Israel hasn't the right to hold these funds as long as there is no clause in the agreement that gives it that right.
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday December 21, 2011, 10:29 am
And, in addition, he has been proven wrong in his grasp of both the law and history.
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday December 21, 2011, 2:48 pm
Not according to him. According to him, it doesn't matter what existing international law is and the standards to which States for most part maintain. It doesn't matter what source I cite, he still will disagree while trying to throw sand in our eyes while playing clever little games over semantics. I think that this type of position is quite sad, when you are willing to essentially sell your soul to the devil, have no concern of the lives of others, in this case the Palestinians, as long as he can obfuscate and distort.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday December 26, 2011, 9:35 pm
Hi all

I had a wonderful vacation, but now I see a bunch of silliness here again. There are more important things going on in the world than a withholding of funds which lasted only a few days. I'm just catching up on the news now, but some stuff coming out of Korea is looking really good (Yay! No chaos in a nuclear-armed country and maybe even peace on the peninsula!) and I heard we may see the Euro crash hard in the next few weeks (time to plan a trip :) ), so this thread will have to take a back-seat.

Now on to your comments ...

Hi John,
"The true governments fought on" ... Yes they did, and wonderful "true governments" they were. Of course, if the Nazis had won,l they wouldn't have had much of an ability to keep fighting, would they? That's kinda what it means to lose a war, in case you hadn't noticed. They could continue to call themselves the "true governments" as long as they wanted and not recognize anything they refused to, but without the power to enforce any laws they pass, that would mean nothing. As for other governments refusing to recognize the conquest, check out what happened to Poland, Austrio-Hungarian empire (not really much of an empire at that point, but whatever), and the Ottoman empire after WWI. The defeated sides totally accepted the changes of territory, even after the Hague Convention which supposedly outlawed that.

How's a citation of a nearly exactly parallel historical case for non-substantiation of anything? I'm not saying just how I think things should work. I have posted here and in previous posts multiple historical examples of them working exactly as I described.

Hi Alisa,
There are two models for the enforcement of international law: First, there is the interventionist model. For example, check out the Convention on Genocide: It is not only an agreement not to commit genocide, but also to intervene by whatever means necessary (military, not only diplomatic or economic pressure) to stop one. Second, there is the reciprocal model: Check all the Geneva Conventions: Article 2, Paragraph 3 specifically excludes non-signatories which fail to abide by their terms from protection. (Under clarification elsewhere, such loss of protection only applies to efforts to avoid collateral damage, but protection always applies against atrocities with no military objective.) Even among signatories, there is a recognized system of reprisals whereby the victim of a violation may legally violate terms in a specific manner and to a specific degree. Of course this opens the door to a total breakdown, but the point of a penalty for violations has always been to deter them, not for the sake of punishment. This also opens the door to deescalation once the terms have been violated.

Also, Jelica saw my citation of the UN Charter. Why didn't you? Is something wrong with your browser?

Your last post is pretty strange: I thought our primary disagreement was over the role which the standards that most states maintain in the law. I care about that, but I do not care quite so much about the standards to which they pay lip-service. The obfuscation I see here is that lip-service which you take to be actual following and enforcement of those norms. I also care about international law, including the enforcement-clauses written into them, as such clauses are written into any law. Rather than gloss over it all with "The enforcement of International law is through diplomatic measures, states pressure on the offending party, etc. This is used much more than using force, or sanctions which are a lot harder to implement", which totally ignores reciprocal measures (which are actually the most common in treaties relating to war and trade rfom the Geneva Conventions to NAFTA), I actually look into each law and see the prescribed measures.

Hi Jelica,

I didn't expect them to list laws. However, after a pretty extensive search, I really could not find one which supported it. Can you? The closest anybody I have ever asked has found was a clause in the Hague Convention which forbids recognition of the transfer of territory to countries which instigated war for the sake of conquest (not Israel in 1967, unless you think it somehow engineered the Arabs' force-buildup on its borders, war-mongering rhetoric, and closure of the Suez canal to its ships, and that is a story I would like to hear). The best I have heard regarding that is a citation of the Hague Convention followed by a claim that Israel by its nature is definitively always the aggressor, a claim not rooted in anything substantial.

Also, what part of the charter forbids the transfer of territory following war? I do not believe the UN should have denied them the right to self-defense. However, for the sake of peace it should have let matter of the West Bank rest in 1994 once the treaty was signed rather than continue to demand a change in the terms after that point. Likewise, the violation of Article 2 was only indisputable after 1994. The UN should let Jordan make peace as it sees fit.

Hi Abdessalam,
I'm glad to see you back here. You're right that I do not look at it as a judge. I do not consider myself quite so qualified in these matters. I look at things as a student, raising arguments against whatever bias I see in others' posts to find out if they can poke holes in all of them. On another board, with vastly different politics, while I am not quite the board's arch-liberal I come pretty close. You might enjoy some of my defenses of Arabs posted there.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 27, 2011, 4:18 am
Stephen says:--

"I heard we may see the Euro crash hard in the next few weeks (time to plan a trip :) )"

I just am astounded by the arrogance and thoughtlessness explicit in that phrase. That a crash of the Euro will enegender mass unemployment, political instability, a run on the banks and worse matters not a jot to Stephen. Oh no, it's "time to take a trip".

Absolutely disgraceful.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 27, 2011, 4:37 am
"Hi John,
"The true governments fought on" ... Yes they did, and wonderful "true governments" they were. Of course, if the Nazis had won,l they wouldn't have had much of an ability to keep fighting, would they? That's kinda what it means to lose a war, in case you hadn't noticed. "

If, if, if.

But there is no "if", is there Stephen? The Polish government, along with its allies, won the war. You claimed that Poland became "legally a part of Germany" simply because of conquest. Will you finally admit that this claim is nonsense?

 

Abdessalam Diab (150)
Tuesday December 27, 2011, 5:15 am
Stephen
I never wanted you to be a judge .I know you are, apparently, not qualified for such job as it is clear you are not neutral but taking the Zionist side.Yes the funds were released for PA but against submarines to be supplied to Israel by Germany at almost 50% discount.A form of blackmailing a European country.An other version of the Merchant of Venice with my apology to all my Jewish friends.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday December 30, 2011, 1:03 pm
Hi John,

Do you have a problem with my desire to pump wealth into the European economy through tourism following a crash? Also, you seem to have lost the thread we were talking about: My point was that the Polish territory from before the war ended up Polish only because the Allies won the war, not due to any law. Look back at where we went on this diversion, on December 17. (Search for the string "position of strength" on this page.) Of course I am not arguing that Poland became a part of Germany after WWII. That really would be nonsense. I am arguing that the precedent cited as the basis for S.C. 242 did not exist.

Hi Abdessalam,
I'm not really sure how it amounts to blackmailing a European country: Since when did Germany care about Palestinians? The two may have happened at the same time, but I get the impression that the German discount has more to do with its desire to contain Iran than any sympathy for the poor. Like I mentioned before, I am "taking the Zionist side" here because if I am to find holes in their arguments anywhere, this is a place I would look for those. I "side" with Arabs in other places where I search for holes in other arguments, with Progressives in places where I expect to find them attacked, and against them in places where they dominate. I test the arguments which I hear from all sides, not trusting myself to be some kind of sole judge of them. Indeed the arguments I brought for testing have been demonstrated to be wrong on multiple occasions, so I stopped asking for tests of those arguments. That said, I have found (and have found people who found) far fewer holes in Zionist arguments than in anti-Zionist.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.