Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique wrote:I see. Israel wants to keep some of the land it conquered in 1967 - another block in the peace process is uncovered. (UN resolution 242 is written in French and English - the French version is clear that it means 'all teritories' and the English just says 'territories' instead of 'the territories').

When asked for clarification the writers of resolution stated that not all territories are meant. Israel wants to exchange land for peace, like it did with Egypt. But remember 242 also demands recipocracy and doesn't ask for unilateral actions. After 1967 Arab leaders refused to make peace with Israel. Now the PA doesn't want to negotiate. Hamas and Hezbollah are seeking the destruction of Israel. Once the enemies of Israel realize that it will always be there and will not commit national suicide, peace will be made very soon.

Thanks FD - I see we've come full circle.

See my other thread 'it's really quite simple' which addresses the issues you raise and examines whether the Israeli line stands up to scrutiny. International law is quite clear that aquiring land via a war is illegal, and even resolution 242 says this in the preamble. You don't dispute this and therefore should agree that Israel wants to willingly consolidate an illegal aquisition of land. The Arab Peace Plan offers peace in return for the land conquered by Israel and therefore offers the security/peace that Israel says it wants - so it makes a mockery of the argument that the Palestinians don't want to exchange land for peace.

I, for one, think the Palestinian diplomatic initiative is to be applauded - as it is attempting to make a breakthrough in the negotiations without resorting to violence. It also exposes the fact that it is isn't the Palestinian (be it Muslim, Christian or atheist) that is holding things up at the moment.

Cheers,
Shafique

Pali - Push for Independence

A 28-year-old security guard NOT SOLDIER was lightly-to-moderately wounded when stabbed by a Palestinian woman at the Kalandia checkpoint on Sunday afternoon.

shafique wrote:International law is quite clear that aquiring land via a war is illegal, and even resolution 242 says this in the preamble.

According to international law countries can defend themselves against acts of aggression. To occuopy land conquered in a defensive war is allowed, until a peace arrangement is in place. This is also what 242 is saying. But Arabs countries reacted with the three no's of Khartoum.

shafique wrote:illegal aquisition of land.

The land is acquired legally according to international law.

FD - perhaps you can tell us what the International Court of Justice has ruled on this issue? In my thread 'it's quite simple' it refers to the legal rulings on the issue. Are the facts stated there wrong?

Then perhaps we can see whether Israel is acting legally when it refuses to give up land conquered in the 1967 war.

The Geneva conventions etc all state that it is illegal to evict people from land conquered in war - thus the eviction of the inhabitants of the Maghreb quarter of Jerusalem, was a crime. Similarly, the colonies in the West Bank are criminal settlements under the law.

But then again, perhaps the International Courts or the UN has ruled that Israel is allowed to maintain the occupation and build these colonies.

Given that Israel has bombed other sovereign territories and taken land by force, and that it has a nuclear arsenal (and not to mention the continuing hostage taking) - a good case could be made that Israel is the aggressor in all this.

But then, as I said before, I applaud the Palestinians for choosing diplomacy and going for the unilateral declaration of Independence.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:FD - perhaps you can tell us what the International Court of Justice has ruled on this issue? In my thread 'it's quite simple' it refers to the legal rulings on the issue. Are the facts stated there wrong?

First, the rulings of the ICJ are non-binding. You cannot break non-binding rules. I have never seen an advise by the ICJ stating that the occupation of the Westbank is illegal. The occupation is legal, as it is the result of a defensive war.

shafique wrote: a good case could be made that Israel is the aggressor in all this.

There is internationally not doubt in 1948, 1967 and 1973, the Arab countries were the aggressors and that Israel fought defensive wars. Hence no ruling that the occupation is illegal.

This is what the Nuremburg tribunal had to say about that:

"to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:FD - perhaps you can tell us what the International Court of Justice has ruled on this issue? In my thread 'it's quite simple' it refers to the legal rulings on the issue. Are the facts stated there wrong?

First, the rulings of the ICJ are non-binding. You cannot break non-binding rules. I have never seen an advise by the ICJ stating that the occupation of the Westbank is illegal. The occupation is legal, as it is the result of a defensive war.

What do the non-binding rulings of the ICJ say - do they say that the occupation is legal or illegal?

(I agree that the ICJ can't force Israel to abide by the law, it can only state what is legal or illegal. I understand you believe the occupation is legal.)


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:What do the non-binding rulings of the ICJ say - do they say that the occupation is legal or illegal?

The occupation by itself is legal. Please provide text(s) of the rulings that makes you doubt...

So, you aren't going to tell us what the ICJ ruled on then?

Fair enough.

Here's what I quoted in 'It's quite simple thread'

Finkelstein explained that in July 2004 the highest judicial body in the world, The International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave an advisory opinion as to the legality of the wall that the Israelis were (and are) constructing. In order to render this opinion, the court had to consider preliminary questions which correspond to the first three questions above.

On the question of Israeli borders the ICJ was unequivocal. Since, according to international law, land may not be acquired by force, and since Israel acquired land in Gaza and the West Bank this way, it is, ipso facto, illegal. There is, therefore, in effect, no dispute regarding the disputed territories: international law is clear and straight forward – the land does not belong to the Israelis. Therefore, following on from this judgement, Israeli settlers are settled on land that was obtained illegally, and are thus in flagrant violation of international law.

Let me repeat that last bit for you:
international law is clear and straight forward – the land does not belong to the Israelis. Therefore, following on from this judgement, Israeli settlers are settled on land that was obtained illegally, and are thus in flagrant violation of international law.

Is Finkelstein wrong? (I haven't verified that this is what the ICJ ruled, so happy to change my view if this is shown to be wrong).

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes , Finkelstein is wrong Israel didnot obtain the land illegally. It was/is legal, because it was the result of a defensive war. I notice that you are unable to produce a ruling concerning international law that says that the Israeli occupation is illegal.

I didn't ask about Finkelstein's opinion on whether Israel was acting illegally or not (he clearly states he agrees with the ICJ) - but rather was his summary of the ICJ ruling wrong?

Let me repeat it for you (again):
international law is clear and straight forward – the land does not belong to the Israelis. Therefore, following on from this judgement, Israeli settlers are settled on land that was obtained illegally, and are thus in flagrant violation of international law.

You are arguing that the land does now legally belong to Israelis (aren't you?) - the ICJ ruling says it doesn't and the colonies are illegal. Colonies = occupation. Or am I my missing something here?

You can download the ruling from here:
http://www.stopthewall.org/latestnews/637.shtml

Cheers,
Shafique

Let me repeat again then, ICJ rulings are non-binding. The occupation of the Westbank is legal. You can dispute the legality of the settlements or the wall, but the Israeli military presence in the Westbank is legal and not against international law. And yes Finkelstein is wrong when he says that the land is obtained illegally. I still notice you donot argue with this anymore.

So, your non-response reads to me:

'No, Finkelstein was not wrong when he summarised what the ICJ said - that in their legal opinion Israel is in violation of International law. I'll continue to believe otherwise though -thank you very much, please don't bother me with facts, I'll stick to my beliefs'




Cheers,
Shafique

My believes are:

1-Israeli military presence in the Westbank is legal
2-ICJ rulings are non-binding
3-Israel should swap land for peace, and not doesn't necessarily have to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines.

Try to prove me wrong on point 1 and 2!
3 is in line with international consensus.

Ah, interesting that you use the phrase 'military presence' as being legal. I have called Israel's occupation illegal because it includes land that has been aquired for civilian use (eg the colonies) and includes the construction of the separation wall into Palestinian land occupied since 1967 and incorporating this land into Israel.

Perhaps we should have been more specific on Israel's violation of international law in regards to the occupation.

Whilst International law allows for military control of an area, it does not allow the eviction of inhabitants from the area controlled, or the settlement of people into that land. This is what makes the occupation illegal right now - these are the violations of international law.

The ICJ ruling is uneqivocable - the taking of land (as opposed to just a military occupation - which at sometime has to be withdrawn) is illegal. The word used is 'aquisition' of territory.

Withdrawing from areas that are occupied by the military is not 'swapping' land - the land does not belong to the Israelis so they can't swap it - they can only withdraw.

So, I agree with the fact in law that a military power is allowed to occupy land after a war - but also point out that the occupying power is subject to international law. Anything breaking these laws is illegal - the occupation of land that Israel now considers Israeli land is an illegal occupation, it is not allowed by International law to aquire this land and claim it for the occupying power.

Cheers,
Shafique

nothing belongs to the israelies except some lands bought by the zionist jews in ottoman empire while the ruling was by the ottomans.. The deeds of the lands in the peninsula are in the hands of Turks..

shafique wrote:Ah, interesting that you use the phrase 'military presence' as being legal.

Yes, the occupation by itself is legal. Recognizing the fact that Israel is fighting defensive wars against Arab aggressors.

If under internationial law the settelememts would be illegal, to whom does it rightfully belong then? It is terra nullius. It didn't belong to anybody rightfully before 1967.

Flying Dutchman wrote:If under internationial law the settelememts would be illegal, to whom does it rightfully belong then? It is terra nullius. It didn't belong to anybody rightfully before 1967.

Why the 'if'?

The ICJ has ruled unequivocably that the colonies are illegal. International Law doesn't give a free-pass to conquer land by force that you 'think' is uninhabited or even if it is uninhabited.

What was illegal about Israel's eviction of East Jerusalem residents and the bulldozing of their homes, was that it violated international law about what an occupying power can do.

Your argument that it didn't belong to anyone is reminscent of the racist Australian policies to aboriginal lands.

But shouldn't we really focus on what the International law actually says and what the International Courts have ruled, rather than whether your (interesting) view that the land didn't belong to anyone is correct? They've ruled on the issue - the building of colonies on land conquered in 1967 is illegal.

But if Israel's 1948 borders were created by the UN, then the West Bank etc was given to the Palestinians at the same time. How can this be 'didn't belong to anyone'?

Does it feel like you've painted yourself into a corner? (I'm intrigued as to how you'll avoid the fact that the colonies are illegal)

Cheers,
Shafique

You continously and willfully neglect the fact that ICJ rulings are non-binding, you cannot break non-binding ruling, so Israel is not breaking any international law.

Flying Dutchman wrote:You continously and willfully neglect the fact that ICJ rulings are non-binding, you cannot break non-binding ruling, so Israel is not breaking any international law.

Whether the Security Council chooses to follow the legal ruling is moot - the point is that they ruled on the legality of the Israeli actions, and ruled unequivocably that they are illegal - the construction of colonies etc on land captured in 1967 is illegal.

It really is quite simple to me - is building in the occupied Palestinian land legal or illegal by international law? ICJ says it is illegal.

(But humour me, what is the difference between a non-binding ruling that Israel is breaking the law and a binding ruling that Israeli is breaking the law - what does the 'binding' do? My understanding is that it will force the security council to act - but if you have a different understanding, pray let me know - I may be mistaken).

Cheers,
Shafique

It is a legal opinion that is non-binding. Israel isnot forced in any way to obide by the ruling. Is a quite simple. Like:

-Land captured in 1967 by Israel is legal
-In no way is Israel obliged to retreat to the 1949 armistice line under international law
-the Arab Peace initiave is vague on some important issues and is missing reference to jewish refugees
-Palestinians refuse to negiotate at the moment

Flying Dutchman wrote:It is a legal opinion that is non-binding. Israel isnot forced in any way to obide by the ruling. Is a quite simple.

I've started a new thread so we can examine what the legal ruling was and was not.

It reads to me quite clearly that the ruling is that Israel is violating international law. The fact Israel doesn't want to agree or follow this ruling doesn't change this fact.

The Arab Peace Initiative has been quoted above - it states that the refugee issue should be resolved in a Just manner and in accordance with UN resolutions. What do you object to in that?

Cheers,
Shafique

It only references the Palestinians refugees. Not the jewish refugees.

Thanks for the clarification - like me, then, you don't have any issue with the proposal for Palestinian refugees in the Arab Peace Plan which states:

A just solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees, to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194

Now, what is the 'problem' with Jewish Refugees? Who is not allowing them to return to their homes in Palestine? (serious question)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Now, what is the 'problem' with Jewish Refugees? Who is not allowing them to return to their homes in Palestine? (serious question)

The PA wants a jew free Palestine, after the whole jewish population was killed or expelled by the Jordanian army. Also, compensation should be payed for the hundreds of thousands of jewish refugees from the Arab countries after 1948.

Flying Dutchman wrote:The PA wants a jew free Palestine,

Really? This is news to me. Which Christian or Muslim Palestinian expressed this wish? (By 'PA' I presume you mean Palestinian Authority)

As far as I know, this isn't in the Arab Peace Plan.

But - who are these Jewish refugees? Are you confusing a 'colonial-free' Palestine with a Jewish-free one (i.e. the reverse of my 'jewish only road' rather than 'colonial only road')?

(When I say who are the refugees - I mean, are there actually jewish refugees who want to return to where they were expelled from and if so, have the Palestinians said they won't allow them to return? I just want to make sure this isn't a made-up/ficticious problem -i.e. it's a real issue rather than an excuse to justify your objection to the Arab Peace plan)

Why wouldn't Palestine allow Jewish immigration or deny existing Jewish Palestinians the right of abode? (or more to the point, who says this is a reason for not accepting the Arab Peace Plan?)

Cheers,
Shafique

I forgot to mention that UN Resolution 242 also calls for a 'just settlment to the refugee problem' .


To my knowledge, Jewish refugees aren't a recognised group - but of late there has been a campaign to create this group and use it to weaken the argument for non-Jewish Palestinian refugees' rights of return. The argument has been to try and postulate how much the land left by Jewish emigrants/expellees is worth and offset this from the compensation that is owed to the Arab refugees. It's a murky game.. but fascinating reading.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Really? This is news to me. Which Christian or Muslim Palestinian expressed this wish?

Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator.

shafique wrote:But - who are these Jewish refugees? Are you confusing a 'colonial-free' Palestine with a Jewish-free one (i.e. the reverse of my 'jewish only road' rather than 'colonial only road')?

From your favorite newspaper:

Recognising the Jewish 'Nakba'

along with 25,000 other Jews expelled by Nasser and forced to sign a document pledging that they would never return. In a final act of spite, the customs officers ransacked her suitcase and even her baby's carrycot.

the neglected rights of (according to indisputable UN figures) 856,000 Jewish refugees

The exodus began 60 years ago when Arab states, hell-bent on crushing the new state of Israel militarily, also turned on their peaceful Jewish communities. Street violence killed over 150 Jews. Within 10 years, more than half the Jews had fled or been expelled, following discriminatory legislation , extortion, arrests, internment and executions.

As the historian Nathan Weinstock has observed, not even the Jews of 1939 Germany had been so thoroughly "ethnically cleansed".

Arab League states drafted a law in November 1947 branding their Jews as enemy aliens

The resolution is about recognition, not restitution, although Jewish losses have been quantified at twice Palestinian losses

shafique wrote:(When I say who are the refugees - I mean, are there actually jewish refugees who want to return to where they were expelled from and if so, have the Palestinians said they won't allow them to return? I just want to make sure this isn't a made-up/ficticious problem -i.e. it's a real issue rather than an excuse to justify your objection to the Arab Peace plan)

This is the correct definition for a refugee:

a refugee is a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality,
and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country

I know making up things makes live easier for you, but lets stick to the above internationally recognized definition.

See my previous post above - about the definition of these 'Jewish Refugees'. Thus far, to my knowledge, no government/international body has recognised this new spin on events.

Do you have a reference for Erekat saying that he wants a 'Jew-free' Palestine?

Cheers,
Shafique

I stand corrected, the US House of Representatives is the first (unless I'm mistaken) that has agreed to this reading of history.

Cheers,
Shafique