SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The TNR EXCHANGE: Trust Fall

POLITICS APRIL 15, 2010

The TNR EXCHANGE: Trust Fall

BY JAMES RISEN AND YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI

James Risen, a Washington-based writer, and Yossi Klein Halevi, a Jerusalem-based writer, have been friends since they both crashed the Nazi Party headquarters in Chicago as student reporters 30 years ago. They have been joking and arguing about news and politics ever since, especially when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. 

This e-mail exchange began in the shadow of the dispute between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government. It became obvious that Washington and Jerusalem were experiencing a failure to communicate, and so Risen and Halevi thought it might be valuable to lay out what Americans and Israelis are saying about each other—but not to each other.

Dear Yossi,

Early in the Bush administration, I attended a lunch meeting with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, and was quite struck by the confident tone of his presentation. Without resorting to much diplomatic nuance, he made it clear that Israel, at least for the moment, had lost interest in engagement and negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel, he signaled, was ready to pull up the drawbridge.

That wasn't too surprising, given the series of Intifadas that Israel had recently suffered. What I did find intriguing was that the ambassador seemed to know something I didn't yet, which was that the Bush administration was ready and eager to go along with this new hard line Israeli position. What the ambassador was really telegraphing to a room full of American reporters was that George W. Bush—whose father had been tough on Israel—had quietly but radically altered the dynamics of the Washington-Jerusalem relationship in a way that the Israel government very much liked.

The Bush approach to Israel became publicly apparent soon thereafter, and for the next eight years, Israel was the recipient of a hands-off approach from Washington, one that placed virtually no demands on the country. George Bush and Dick Cheney viewed Israel as a full partner in their war on terror, and in the neoconservative drive to spread democracy throughout the Middle East. They were loathe to strain that partnership by trying to force Israel to restart serious negotiations.

So November 2008 must have come as something of a shock to the Israeli system. With the election of President Barack Obama, Israel could no longer count on coddling from Washington. Obama was serious about restarting the peace process, and so was his new Secretary of State, whose husband had pushed for peace until it hurt the last time around. George W. Bush was back in Dallas, buying a new house.

Support for Israel is deeply bipartisan in the United States, but Bush had fundamentally altered the political calculus on the issue, and so now, by demanding a real peace process, the Democrats must have suddenly all looked like Noam Chomsky to Israelis.

But there was something deeper going on in the United States than simply a new administration. Bush had exhausted the American people. Two bloody and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that had dragged on for most of the decade had left many Americans with a serious case of Middle East fatigue.

With about five thousand American soldiers dead in the two wars, more and more Americans were eager for withdrawal from the region. What's more, the Great Recession had left millions of Americans jobless or even homeless, and fewer were willing to support trillion-dollar wars of choice.

When they did think about the Middle East, Americans thought about Iraq, Afghanistan, and their boys on the front lines; they didn't think about Israel and Israel's problems. They debated whether we had achieved victory in Iraq, whether sending more troops to Afghanistan would really damage al Qaeda, and what to do about Pakistan and the terrorist havens in its frontier regions. Anything in the Middle East that got in the way of American objectives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan became an irritant.

Then there was the issue of Iran, and U.S. and Israeli attitudes here once again diverged. Iran appeared to be working on a nuclear weapons program, but more immediately, it was also playing a major role in Iraq, and if it so chose, could play havoc on American troops ready and eager to withdraw. Israelis looked at Iran and saw only the shadow of nuclear war; Americans looked at Iran and saw a regional player that had to be contained, especially in Iraq. Certainly Washington is concerned about a nuclear Iran, but most officials do not see it as an existential threat.

The bottom line—it is no longer September 12, 2001 in Washington. And that makes all the difference.

Best,

Jim

Dear Jim,

The Obama administration’s decision to provoke a crisis with Israel is based on a profound misreading of the last decade in Middle East peacemaking efforts. Israeli disillusionment toward the peace process wasn’t, as you write, only a result of Palestinian violence. It was because the Second Intifada occurred after Israel accepted a Palestinian state. When Israel endorsed the Clinton Proposals of December 2000 and received in return the worst wave of terrorism in its history, most Israelis despaired of a negotiated settlement. One result was the near-total collapse of the Israeli left which, tragically, had won the domestic argument over the untenability of the occupation, only to lose the argument over the viability of a peace agreement.

For all the skepticism, though, Israeli attempts to end the occupation continued through the Bush years. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon uprooted Gaza’s settlements, and the result was that Palestinian rocket attacks shifted from those settlements to Israeli communities within the 1967 borders. Sharon’s successor, Ehud Olmert, offered the Palestinians the equivalent of one hundred percent of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as their capital. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, Olmert says, never even responded.

If the administration wants to make progress on peace talks, it should focus on the real obstacle—Palestinian refusal to confine the return of the descendants of the refugees of 1948 to a Palestinian state. That’s the reason why Palestinian leaders have rejected Israel’s offers for statehood. No Israeli government will agree to absorb descendants of Palestinian refugees into Israel proper. That would lead not to a two-state solution but to a bi-national state.

Yet the administration seems convinced that, with enough pressure on Israel, a peace agreement is within reach. That wishful thinking also ignores the rise of Hamas. Even if, by some miracle, Fatah conceded on the right of return, Israel is in effect being asked to cede the West Bank and East Jerusalem to half the Palestinian people, while remaining at war with the other half.

Tragically for Israelis as well as Palestinians, a two-state solution is hardly imminent. That doesn’t mean that negotiations are futile. There is much that needs to be done in the interim—increasing security cooperation between Israei and Palestinian forces, removing more Israeli roadblocks, encouraging Palestinian economic growth. But by focusing on the unrealistic goal of ending the conflict, Obama is blocking the possibility of achieving accessible goals.

Jim, you’re misreading Israeli attitudes toward Obama. Israelis aren’t astonished at the president for being serious about the peace process, as you put it, but because his efforts seem dangerously naïve. In demanding a cessation of building in long-standing Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, Obama created a precondition for negotiations which even the Palestinian leadership hadn’t previously insisted on. The absurd result was that Palestinian leaders refused to sit with the first Israeli government that had actually suspended building in the West Bank, even though that had negotiated with previous Israeli governments that had built in the territories.

Israelis aren’t looking for unconditional support from Washington, but they do expect friendship. There was widespread acceptance here of Obama’s demand for a West Bank settlement freeze, as a way of testing the administration’s premise that such a move might result in gestures of normalization from Arab countries. But even after building was suspended, no reciprocal gestures came. Where is the administration’s anger against Arab intransigence? Frankly, Israelis are wondering whether America under Obama can be trusted any more as an ally.

As for Middle East fatigue, Jim, believe me, I empathize. But if the administration persists in one-sided blame against Israel, its Middle East policy will implode. Israelis will not be bullied, even by friends.

Best,

Yossi

Dear Yossi,

Reading your response, I was struck that you seemed to miss the central theme of what I wrote. To repeat—the Obama administration and the American public now view Israel through the lens of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The great irony of George W. Bush's global war on terror is that it has enmeshed the United States so deeply in the Middle East and the wider Islamic world that the nation has developed a myriad of new interests in the region, and they range far beyond those of the Israelis and the Palestinians, of the West Bank and Gaza. Like the British in the 19th century, America now has a series of interlocking agendas from the Levant to Central Asia. Israel is now just one piece in a strategic jigsaw puzzle, and, while no one would acknowledge this, its unique political status in Washington has been eroded.

This has happened because Israel is now, in effect, asking Americans to choose between what is best for Israel and what is best for American troops fighting throughout the Muslim world. Maybe Israelis didn't notice, but reports that General David Petraeus had warned of the threat to the American military from Israel's failure to reach a settlement with the Palestinians had a devastating political impact in Washington. He has objected to that characterization of his comments; the New York Times pointed out this week that Petraeus had actually told Congress that a lack of progress in the Middle East created a hostile environment for the United States. But despite Petraeus’s demurrals, President Obama just this week made it clear that yes, indeed, his administration does see a clear linkage between the Arab-Israeli conflict and American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Times reported, the president said that resolving the dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States” that could end up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.” If that sort of linkage—between the lives of American boys to peace on the West Bank and Gaza—gains wider currency in the United States, the entire political dynamic between Washington and Jerusalem will be radically altered. 

For a president who is surging troops into Afghanistan and struggling to deal with a corrupt Afghan president, a president who is sweating out Iraqi elections that could trigger another round of sectarian violence in Baghdad, and a president who is struggling to win over full-throated Pakistani cooperation for a campaign against al Qaeda, Israeli intransigence on housing units in East Jerusalem is a headache and a distraction. The biggest change from George Bush in the way President Obama is trying to run the war on terror is that he is serious about winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world. I guess the real question is this—does that put Washington and Jerusalem on a collision course?

Best,

Jim

Dear Jim,

You’re right: Israelis haven’t internalized the new America that has emerged from the Iraqi and Afghan wars. Maybe that’s because it’s too frightening for us to realize that Obama’s America appears to be adopting a foreign policy similar to Europe’s, which means relentless public rebuke of Israel without faulting the Palestinians for their repeated rejection of a two-state solution, and blaming settlements, rather than Palestinian refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state within any border, for the absence of peace.

As for Israel endangering the lives of Americans: Jihadists are attacking American soldiers not because Israel is building apartment building in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem but because those soldiers are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. (For what it’s worth, General Petraeus has denied saying that Israel endangers American soldiers.)

Of course a solution to the Palestinian problem would ease tensions in the Middle East. That is as much in my interest as yours: The Palestinian problem threatens Israeli boys far more than American boys. I am ready to make almost any concession that would end this pathological conflict, provided I sensed that Israel would receive security and legitimacy in return. And that of course is the problem. Most Israelis are convinced that, under current conditions, a Palestinian state would only result in greater terrorism and instability. American pressure will not likely force us to take risks we perceive as existential. 

The Netanyahu coalition is the first Israeli government to suspend settlement building. Yet instead of demanding reciprocal Arab gestures of goodwill—or even that Palestinian leaders return to the negotiating table—the administration has intensified the pressure on Israel, with an unprecedented ultimatum over Jerusalem.

If the administration were to pressure the Palestinians and their Arab allies as it is pressuring and humiliating Israel, many Israelis might consider a temporary building suspension even in Jerusalem. But not this way, Jim; not as a one-way American diktat.

The more besieged Israel becomes, the more its enemies in the Arab world and Iran will be tempted to attack us. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that, as the American-Israeli crisis deepened, we’ve experienced a renewal of rocket attacks from Gaza and even a mini-intifada in Jerusalem. That was a warning of how the jihadists are reading America’s policy shift. If anyone is endangering lives with an ill-conceived policy, it’s the administration which is endangering Israeli—and Palestinian—lives with its disproportionate pressure on Israel.

Best,

Yossi

Dear Yossi,

You fear America is becoming like Europe. (There's a strange Tea Party echo there, but I digress.) Perhaps the U.S. reaction is inevitable, however, given the stasis in Israel. In fact, to an outside observer, it seems as if Israel has been caught in amber.

While you weren't looking, the rest of the world has changed. What troubles Americans today is that Israelis don't seem to get the fact that the United States has fought two wars and fundamentally altered the dynamics of the Middle East. Yet when it comes to Israel, it might as well still be 1980, not 2010.

And so increasingly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict looks to American eyes like Northern Ireland, an endless conflict fought over land and ethnicity and religion and half-forgotten blood feuds, with a strange immunity to influences from the outside world.

The United States has always supported Israel, even as Europe has grown more distant. But will Americans continue to do so if they don't see progress? If it looks—as it does today—like Israeli leaders are ignoring the larger context?

I saw a cartoon a year or two ago that made me laugh, but also wince. It showed headlines from the future. 2020: "Man returns to Moon, Israeli tanks storm into Gaza."  2050: "Man lands on Mars, Israeli tanks storm into Gaza." 2100: "Man lands on Jupiter, Israeli tanks storm into Gaza."

What is perhaps most ominous for Israel is that slowly but surely, Americans are coming to understand the complexities and nuances of the Middle East. For a time after 9/11, ten-foot tall Arabs replaced ten-foot tall Russians in the American imagination. But that is fading. More and more, Arabs, and Muslims generally, are appearing more human, less monstrous, less dangerous. Nearly a decade of involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan—and nearly a decade without a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil—will do that to a country and its people.

Arabs are also becoming more integrated and assimilated into American society, and now they are neighbors, too.

I thought about that when I met a Palestinian woman who told me her family's story a few months ago. Her parents had owned a small farm on land that became part of Israel, and in 1948 the farm was seized by Israelis and her family was forced to move. She grew up in Beirut, and as a young woman met and fell in love with a young college student originally from Gaza. She eventually realized that her boyfriend was not just an ordinary college student, but was also in Fatah.

They married, and she stayed in Beirut while he traveled the world for Fatah. After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, they moved to Tunis along with the organization's leadership.

On a trip to Paris, her husband was killed, almost certainly assassinated by Israeli agents. She eventually found her way to the United States and started over with her small children. 

Today, she lives a comfortable life in America, and her two sons are now soccer stars at different colleges in the United States. Her sons are completely Americanized.

I think that story underscores America's greatest strength – and Israel's greatest weakness.

America is a nation built by immigrants, who come here to seek opportunity or to escape discrimination or oppression in other lands. The greatness of the United States is that it is open to immigrants from all lands (a policy constantly under political threat, but that's another story) and the country is bulldozed and remade by each new wave from Ireland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico, China, Japan, Vietnam, Cuba, Haiti, and yes, Palestine. They are Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists. The Census Bureau now projects that by 2050, a majority of Americans will be members of groups now considered minorities. Certainly, illegal immigration is always a hot political issue, but there is general support for legal immigration, because Americans realize that immigrants bring strength, skills, talent, brainpower, ideas.

The great American idea was transparency. The great American political battles have always been about fighting nativist fears, fighting discrimination, and forcing the country to live up to its ideal of a society open to all.

Israel, on the other hand, seems to be a democracy that has taken counsel of its fears. It seems to hate a changing world, and is a country that wants to pick a fight with the demographer. Israel wants to be both a democracy and a Jewish state. But will the United States keep providing support when and if those two goals seem increasingly at odds, as Israel has to keep building more walls?

So I guess the question is not whether the Obama Administration will apply a little pressure here and there on the margins, just enough to piss off Jerusalem, but not enough to accomplish much. The real question for the longer term is, when will an American president begin to force Israel to confront its future, and open itself up to the Middle East of the 21st century?

Best,

Jim

Dear Jim,

You say that Israel has been caught in amber, even as the rest of the world has changed. Not so: Israel has changed beyond recognition. We're no longer an ideological, pioneering state but a high-tech society that desperately wants to be part of the globalizing world. And Israelis are willing to pay the territorial price for that admission—provided we can be reassured that a Palestinian state wouldn't turn into an even worse nightmare than the one we're caught in now.

In urging Israelis to face reality and accept Palestinian statehood, you're pushing against an open door. That argument was resolved, at least in theory, 20 years ago, during the first intifada, when a majority of Israelis concluded that the occupation would devastate Israel from within and turn us into a pariah from without.

A majority of Israelis agree that ending the occupation is an existential need—to spare us from growing isolation, from the moral attrition of occupation, from the untenable choice between Israel as a Jewish state and a democratic state.

But that's only half the equation. You ignore the other half: that a Palestinian state could turn into an existential threat to Israel. Most Israelis are convinced that, given the current state of the Palestinian national movement, an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would lead to missile attacks against the Israeli heartland, including greater Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion Airport. All it takes is a few "primitive rockets" to be launched every day against Israeli neighborhoods—and for the international community to tie our hands when we try to defend ourselves—for normal life in this country to become impossible.

In order to make your case against Israel, you have to ignore the fact that Israel tried—three times in the last decade—to create a Palestinian state. Palestinian leaders rejected the equivalent of one hundred percent of the West Bank and Gaza, because that deal would have required them to restrict refugee return to a Palestinian state. The Palestinian pre-condition for an Israeli withdrawal is that Israel commit suicide. As a veteran Peace Now activist said to me recently: The Palestinians won't let us end the occupation.

We've tried negotiations and got suicide bombings; we tried unilateral withdrawal without negotiations and got rocket attacks. What would you have us do next?

What's so depressing about your position, Jim, is that it offers proof that Arab intransigence is winning, that with enough time, the combination of terrorism and denial of Israel's legitimacy will wear down even friends of Israel like you. And then the Middle East conflict seems to turn into an endless blood feud. Or that stupid journalistic phrase, a cycle of violence. And then what you once knew about the conflict—that at crucial moments Israel has accepted compromise and the Palestinians have rejected it—gets lost in the general weariness.

Yes, Israeli tanks will almost certainly "storm into Gaza" again. But that cartoon you cite omits these crucial words: "Palestinians shell Israeli towns and then Israeli tanks storm into Gaza." But hey, that's just a detail in the endless blood feud. So is the fact that we pulled out of Gaza. And that most of us would pull out of the West Bank if we didn't think it would turn into Gaza.

There's a curious obtuseness running through your position—and in this you are by no means alone among our colleagues in the media. Israel, you write, has a "strange immunity to influences from the outside world." In fact Netanyahu has given in to the Obama administration on two crucial issues. First, he accepted a two-state solution—for the first time placing the Likud within the national consensus in support of a Palestinian state. And he suspended housing starts across the West Bank, including in settlement blocs near the border slated to be part of Israel according to every peace plan. No Israeli leader ever went as far. Yet Netanyahu is treated virtually as a war monger. Why, Israelis wonder, should we give in to the next Obama demand on Jerusalem when we've gotten zero credit for giving in to his other demands—while the Palestinians, who refuse to even show up at the table, are treated with kid gloves?

Finally, you raise the question of Israel as a Jewish state versus a democratic state. For me, erasing either identity would do fatal damage to Israel's soul. An Israel that has cut itself off from Jewish responsibility would not have rescued tens of thousands of Jews in Ethiopia. And that's an Israel I would not want to live in.

Israel is fated to be both a Jewish state that is responsible for Jews around the world and for Jewish history, and a democratic state that makes room in its national identity for its non-Jewish citizens. How to reconcile those two non-negotiable needs is the most important domestic issue facing Israel.

I would hope that Americans would appreciate the complexity of our dilemmas, tell us when we're wrong and back us against the international campaign to deny Israel's legitimacy. That, at least, is what I expect from a friend.

Best,

Yossi

Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor to The New Republic and a fellow of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. James Risen is the author of State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 329 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

329 comments

James Risen has internalized the intransigence of the Palestinians. And does not represent the majority of Americans. Thank you Yossi Klein Halevi, especially for: "If anyone is endangering lives with an ill-conceived policy, it’s the administration which is endangering Israeli—and Palestinian—lives with its disproportionate pressure on Israel."

- K2K

April 16, 2010 at 12:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see anywhere in this exchange Risen meeting Klein's sane arguments.

- basman

April 16, 2010 at 1:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like many Israelis, Klein Halevi glosses right over the difference between military occupation and the requirements of security and the colonization of the West Bank. The glib conflation is why many no longer take seriously Israel's security claims. Because Israel has confused its security needs with its territorial ambitions, ambitions that it declines to abandon although they are rejected by the entire world. Thus, it has discredited its own security claims. The settlements up the security ante, and then the greater security demand -- and the inability therefore simply to end the occupation -- is used as cover/justification for settlement. If Israel had limited its West Bank presence to the requirements of security, it would not be virtually isolated today. In turn, Israel's isolation now affects the US in a way it did not during the Cold War because the US requires much greater cooperation from a broad array of nations than it did then. Hence, Israel is imposing a tax on the US and US interests that was not there before. The US will not continue to pay the tax for the sake of "friendship" even though Israel perceives the cost to it of suspending West Bank construction as greater than the cost to the US of enduring it. Israel is the client. The US does not care much about the compromise of Israel's territorial ambitions if it costs the US. That is what has changed. States do not have friends, as much as we all enjoy the analogy to personal relationships. States have interests, and in a patron-client relationship, it is the client, not the patron, that will in the end have to align its interests or forgo the patronage, something that Israel, in its isolation, cannot afford.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 1:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Risen only hinted at it but America's relationship with Israel is starting to go the way of Britain's relationship with the prestate Zionist movement for similar reasons. The relationship began in both cases as a sentimental one--sympathy for a persecuted minority. Jewish volunteers fought alongside British troops in both World Wars, but Britain had to appease Arab and Muslim opinion. Israelis helped with valuable intelligence and weapons testing during the Cold War. But just as Zionist and British interests diverged during the late 1930s and again after World War II, American and Israeli interests have begun to diverge after March 2003. The irony is that Israel's favorite American president, George W. Bush, is ultimately responsible for that divergence. What can Israel do? Have occupation without settlement (outside of East Jerusalem) until the Palestinians and Arabs are willing to come to a final settlement. The United States practiced a similar sort of patience with the Soviet Union for 45 years and with North Korea for even longer.

- tmitch57

April 16, 2010 at 2:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey K2k: we've not me before. I'm basman, how do you do? I don't know if Risen has "internalized the Palestinian perspective", but I'd say, in a very, very short take on this exchange that Halevi was responding to Risen who kept talking past Halevi. Halevi's is a sane and balanced voice and in whose commentary and opinions I put a lot of stcock. More later, K2K, I hope and trust.

- basman

April 16, 2010 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry: you said "...internalized the intransigence of the Palestinians..." not what I said you said. But I still don't read him that way myself here.

- basman

April 16, 2010 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Risen raises a legitimate point about the effect of the Israel-Palestine dispute on our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, he is too quick to draw a conclusion, or accepts on faith the pronouncements of those who are, what needs to be done with our Israel-Palestine policy to affect those who are on the fence as to Iraq and Afghanistan. The conclusion drawn by the Obama administration (was it developed in response to the Iraq/Afghanistan situation or is the Iraq/Afghanistan simply a justification for a previously existing preference?) is that every square inch conquered by Jordan in 1949 has to be restored to its judenrein status that existed prior to 1967. (It should be note that the Israel-Palestine conflict was not significant enough to make it into Petraeus' introductory statement to the Senate Armed Services committee. Nonetheless, even if it is a high level issue, that is not in and of itself an answer as to what needs to be done to counteract the detrimental effects of the conflict on our forces elsewhere in the region.) To make an analogy, in Iraq our conduct of house searches clearly contributed to support for both the nationalist and jihadist insurgencies. By the logic of those who hold like Obama on what we should do in response to Israel-Palestine conflict, in Iraq we would have had to stop all searches of private Iraqi homes to remove that source of support for the insurgency. Unfortunately, Obama has not been any more serious in public diplomacy than his predecessor (see http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2009/17/dale.php and http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2009/17/berman.php). Through public diplomacy, we could find out what actually affects the masses we are trying to affect to actually reduce hostility to our efforts. This will likely require policy changes in both Washington and Jerusalem, just not as drastic as what Obama says is necessary.

- sighthnd

April 16, 2010 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid: "Like many Israelis, Klein Halevi glosses right over the difference between military occupation and the requirements of security and the colonization of the West Bank." I don't think Klein is arguing that settlements like Yizhar, in the middle of Samaria and not on the Route 5 corridor, are needed for security purposes. I think it's more that pulling now would have no more effect of moderating the Palestinians than did pulling out of Gaza. As for the settlements that Israel will keep, Jerusalem vicinity, Gush Etzion bloc, southwestern Samaria, those are at the center of Jewish aspirations. Israel's national anthem does not end "To be a free people in our land/The land of Haifa and Tel Aviv." It ends "... The land of Zion and Jerusalem." Anyone who does not get that there is significance to that is not going to be taken seriously in Israel.

- sighthnd

April 16, 2010 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: your "I don't see anywhere in this exchange Risen meeting Klein's sane arguments." is what I met by my "Risen has internalized the intransigence of the Palestinians" It's as if Risen refusal to respond directly to Klein will de-legitimize Klein's points of history. So very Palestinian, and Cheny-esque. History starts September 12, 2001, or maybe January 20, 2009? Maybe the whole Obama position is to de-link nuclear Iran from Israel, which he could do by highlighting the Iranian threat to Mecca and Medina, and Saudi/Gulf oil concentrated in Shi'a geographic areas from Iraq, Bahrain, to Saudia Arabia. It is all Shi'a living over the major oil deposits. Iran's clients who directly threaten Israel (especially Hezbollah) make this too messy for Obama. basman: like you recently, I used to only read Peretz's TNR blog comments, except during the Gaza action. Was just wondering yesterday where you were when we were having the blackton v. TNR.Reader joust in the "No Americans should die..." thread.

- K2K

April 16, 2010 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I dunno Basman, I think they were both talking past each other, like reading an article about people talking about 2 different movies. I absolutely agree with this: "As for Israel endangering the lives of Americans: Jihadists are attacking American soldiers not because Israel is building apartment building in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem but because those soldiers are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan." But because I agree with this I don't agree with this: "The more besieged Israel becomes, the more its enemies in the Arab world and Iran will be tempted to attack us. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that, as the American-Israeli crisis deepened" Israel wasn't being "besieged" by Bush but that didn't stop Hamas. It is like Halevi is trying to have it both ways. I will agree that there might be some small contribution towards motivations, but the motivations are already there. Another thing I was disappointed in was that there were no answers from either, just an explanation about a larger point of view. I am with Halevi that Israel would be better off if the US just walked away, not every single thing Bush did was wrong. And it is tiresome how people like Obama and Clinton seem to believe they have the answer to every problem, but I don't think that rises to the level of "besieging" Israel. It is a pointless kabuki dance, all Israel has to do is pretend it isn't. In other words, patronize the US. Personally, I would love for there to be a hard line, no negotiations until Fatah recognizes Israel, at the same time I see no reason why Israel, at the same time, open up discussions on the possibility of some limited right of return. Put everything on the table, that doesn't mean Israel has to say yes beyond any kind of token, highly restricted right of return (say for elderly Palestinians who want to die in the town they were born in) And I am for a 3 state solution. A split Palestine is simply not viable. I don't think these jihadists need any excuse to go nuts. They are already nuts.

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 10:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, and let me say I think this is absolute rubbish: The real question for the longer term is, when will an American president begin to force Israel to confront its future, and open itself up to the Middle East of the 21st century? I mean damn, what planet has he been living on? At its very inception Israel opened itself up to the Middle East, in fact Israel has opened itself up so much it makes Messalina look like a chaste virgin. The US has no right to force anyone to do anything besides not attack us or our allies.

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find the notion that American security interests are threatened by the lack of progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace is an interesting outsourcing of blame. It reminded me how Ahmed Sheik, the Al Jazeera editor, when he was interviewed by Pierre Heumann of the Swiss newspaper Die Weltwoche, blamed all the problems that affect Arab societies on Israel r "Zionism": "Who is responsible for the situation? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important reasons why these crises and problems continue to simmer. The day when Israel was founded created the basis for our problems. The West should finally come to understand this. Everything would be much calmer if the Palestinians were given their rights. Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better? I think so." http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/395/an-interview-with-al-jazeera-editor-in-chief-ahmed-sheikh Or a more recent Canadian example: ". To quote from Canadian Foreign Service veteran Gar Pardy, whom Tremonti interviewed: “The other issue [aside from oil] that I think has diminished what little bit of influence we have in Saudi Arabia is our current policy toward Israel. Saudi Arabia plays a very important role on Middle Eastern issues, and they have been very active over the last five years in terms of trying to negotiate some sort of agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Syria for that matter. And the fact that we have taken ourselves out as a balanced observer on those issues, I’m sure is not looked at with any degree of friendliness in Saudi Arabia.” Tremonti, naturally, seized on this: “Let me just clairfy then: Are you suggesting that Canada’s Israel policy could leave young Canadian women in limbo?” Pardy: “Yes.” http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/08/jonathan-kay-who-s-to-blame-for-a-canadian-woman-trapped-in-saudi-arabia-israel-of-course.aspx ______________ It's not Saudi revanchist mysoginist ethos that creates problems for the young Canadian woman; it's Canada's support for Israel that does. It's not Arab rejectionism and Muslim fundamentalism that cause problems for American soldiers. It's Israel's building in Jerusalem that does. You continue to feed this beast and you risk turning a surrealistic scenario into a very plausible future. At what point does Jewish existence on this planet stop being the obstacle for American or Canadian or Arab interests? If Israel were to disappear tomorrow in a puff of nuclear smoke, how long before someone will feel that the presence of Jews in Europe causes the radicalization of European Muslims who then take it out on non-Jewish Europeans? And then what to do? http://volokh.com/files/seuss.jpg

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

one last thing, i promise: Israel is fated to be both a Jewish state that is responsible for Jews around the world and for Jewish history, and a democratic state that makes room in its national identity for its non-Jewish citizens. How to reconcile those two non-negotiable needs is the most important domestic issue facing Israel. That is pretty much true about every country, so I think he overstates the issue. Israel, I think, has long reconciled these needs by being a Democracy based on rule of law. I would hope the most pressing domestic issue in Israel is the state of the economy. As to Jews living outside of Israel, the Iron curtain has fallen a long time ago, for the most part whatever Jew who wants to live in Israel has the opportunity, and I don't think Israel has to take the burden unto itself for the lives of all Jews. Certainly they should monitor or agitate but its primary focus should be on its own security. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most of the rest of the worlds Jews live in America? I think we can take care of them well enough on our own.

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We don't know what Klein Halevi is arguing, sighthnd, because he makes no effort to distinguish between the requirements of security and Israel's territorial designs. This is typical, to conflate the two, in order to persuade that Israel's security needs somehow require the continuation of the settlement practices ("natural growth," as if there do not exist built out communities in the world that require little Itziks and Nogas to move somewhere else when they grow up) and of the settlements themselves. For me, the most telling bit of Klein Halevi's piece is where he claims, like everyone else in Israel it seems, that it is Arab intransigence, not the settlements, that are the obstacle to peace. This shows that he completely misses the point and the reality and that it is he who is talking past Risen, not vice versa. The persistent delusion in Israel is that the US, the patron in the patron-client relationship, should be willing to, or will in fact, bear the diplomatic cost of Israeli settlements just so long as the Arabs are the one's who can be blamed for the lack of peaceful resolution. Hence, this is what Israelis and their advocates constantly argue, who is to blame. This is not necessarily the case at all. The Arab states are not US clients or dependents to nearly same extent as Israel. Thus, the US, in return for its patronage, may very well turn to Israel and say, "Look, we don't really give a damn whose fault it is. Your practice is costing us, and we don't want to pay the price. If you want our continued intervention to prevent the world from doing worse things to you, then this is what you are going to do for us. We are not asking. We are telling you that you have a choice: If you want A, we get B. Just that simple." In a similar vein, you personally seem to think that "to be taken seriously in Israel" is of critical importance. It isn't. What is important is how Israel is regarded in the US, because the only thing that stands between Israel and the rest of the world simply crushing it is the US. Whatever Jewish aspirations, they are going to end up bent in the face of the realities of power, just as the Jewish people had to accept less than all of Israel in the original partition. Netanyahu seems to think (assuming that is he thinks about it at all rather than reacting reflexively as I suspect) that his ultimate outcome will be improved by a belligerent attitude toward the US. I think this is a grave error. To the extent that there is indeterminacy of the final outcome, being a good client rather than a bad client is likely to help, not hurt. My enormous personal regret is that the policy of settlement has compromised the Israeli claim to Jerusalem, and the dispersed settlements have compromised the claim to the contiguous pieces that might have been incorporated in Israel (they still might be, but I wouldn't bet on it). The assumption in Israel seems to be that it can now compromise some of the settlements that the world regards as unlawful for some others that the world also regards as unlawful, but I don't think that follows. Had Israel limited its occupation to its military and security needs and settled only in Jerusalem and adjacent there to, it is possible that the world would have tolerated the status quo for so long that it would have become the de facto border, just as the 1949 armistice lines became a de facto border. But Israeli dominion over the West Bank is not going to last much longer, one way or the other. If Israel can succeed in negotiating its way out of that dominion and get some things it wants in the process, that is fine with the US. But if Israel cannot, then its dominion will be swept away, and many things that it doesn't want to lose may be swept with it. This is reason enough for Netanyahu to do whatever is necessary, short of compromising security, to start face-to-face negotiations or, at the very least, satisfy the US that Israel has done whatever it reasonably can to that end. These apartments in Jerusalem are complete nonsense in the face of the political and diplomatic realities. The belief system of the Israeli public is not going to determine the outcome, no matter what Klein Halevi thinks. Wise leaders would move ahead.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"How to reconcile those two non-negotiable needs is the most important domestic issue facing Israel." I don't think these needs are "non-negotiable". It must be pointed out that in Israel, unlike France, there is no ban on any sort of clothing people choose to wear (unless it includes a suicide-bomb belt..). Unlike Switzerland, there is no ban on building minarets. And unlike Turkey, there is no ban on Arab schools teaching in Arabic. Yet no one ever impeaches the purity of French democracy, or demands that the Swiss will define themselves in terms of their minorities' cultural mores.

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

exactly right noga, you proved my point very well which is why I think he overstated that. (although, truthfully, people did impeach the purity of French democracy because there has been plenty of criticism of that and Switzerland, etc. but your larger point certainly stands)

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "We don't know what Klein Halevi is arguing, sighthnd, because he makes no effort to distinguish between the requirements of security and Israel's territorial designs." Once in a while he will say something intelligent and I have given him credit for that. I have areal problem with "rio's" tone. Beginning with his chosen identity. He does think he is some kind of KIng calling other posters "little" and thinking himself to be the only one here who has the truth about whatever subject he posts. As to Bouloi’s comment above it’s totally irrelevant. Halevi is responding to his interlocutor’s comments and not offering a full fledged argument of his own. Halevi has given us a terrific summary of the impasse in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians: the Palestinians responded to a concrete offer from Israel by launching a murderous intifada and attacking Israeli civilians in their homes and restaurants. They also removed all the settlers from Gaza and the Palestinians responded with rocket attacks. The one thing that is clear in this conversational exchange is that each conversant sees the subject through his subjective lens. (Notice Jims’ mentioning the “Tea Party movement” as if that were relevant to anything in this exchange.) Hence Jim focuses on the larger American interests in the Arab and Muslim world (in this scenario we are no longer in the Middle East since Afghanistan is not part of that world—which makes the notion that the Taliban attacks Americans because of Israel a little dubious, though if this were the case, then we are speaking of a civilization and not regional conflict. I suspect that this is one reason why the administration denied that this was the case.) Yossi by contrast focused on the issue of American misunderstanding of the Israeli position in the conflict. It’s possible that there will be no way to square the circle here. It’s possible that the US sees its interests being challenged by the whole of the Muslim world. In this scenario Israel is seen as a stumbling block. However, if this is the case, then the West’s conflict with the Muslims will come to be seen as religious and cultural conflict. These are not easily resolved. A more imminent obstacle to dealing with it is the Obama administration refusal to honestly describe what we are fighting for and what we are fighting against. (The Bush administration was equally unable to openly state who the enemy was.) Bouloi comments as an inveterate supporter of Obama and no matter the evidence to him unless Israelis and their supporters gives in to Obama’s whims they will always be in the worn. No wonder than that he would attack Yossi with no criticism offered to Jim Risen’s lackluster, but repetitive comments.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I have areal problem with "rio's" tone. " What surprises me is that only among those who disagree with roi have a problem with his tone. The others who share his political views are completely oblivious, or indifferent, to it. Same goes for icarus. Yet I have heard some sanctimonious objections from the same crowds when jackson here resorts to more aggressive language (which by no means gets close to roi's) or when Ginzy calls some posters here "Obamanauts". I tend to extrapolate from this kind of virtual behaviour to the real world behaviour.

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What is important is how Israel is regarded in the US, because the only thing that stands between Israel and the rest of the world simply crushing it is the US." Sorry roid, but huh? The Arabs can't even crush a peanut, much less Israel. "It was in our power to cause the Arab governments to renounce the policy of strength toward Israel by turning it into a demonstration of weakness." Moshe Dayan As to the rest of the world, why would the few countries who could theoretically destroy Israel, like China, have any reason to do so? Look, I get part of what you are saying, Moshe Dayan also said: Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice. That is a wonderful quote, because it is advice, not orders. Do you really want the US to order Israel about? To what end? Israelis know the score, that if you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. (Dayan again) but your enemies have to be willing to talk themselves. How the hell can you talk to someone who won't even recognize your mere existence?

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In Re "Tone": I usually agree with/understand what Roi is saying. A thought struck me however reading these posts. No matter how tired of the Arab/Isreali conflict Americans become, I can't picture us ever abandoning Israel. Yet, we (call it liberals only if you like) have a tendency to try not to picture every Muslim in a negative light and try to understand their plight. I will say it is hard to fully choose a side when both sides have adequate beefs. What I find interesting is that we (liberals again if you must) have a harder time extending the same courtesy to republicans at home that we feel compelled to extend to Muslims across the world. We find it much easier to trust and respect strangers than our own family. Is that the end of the equation however? (I'm sure some might have already said "yes") As this exchange above displays, if you think that ends the discussion, then that might be where you are at fault ...

- jmarshall

April 16, 2010 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, I don't have a problem with most peoples tone. The hyperbole gets a little tiring (and yes, I am guilty too) as does the patronizing name calling. I would rather be called an idiot than an Obamanaut, since whatever idiotic statements I make are my own. Look, we can all put our blinders on, but specific persuasion I think would be more effective than just a label. But aggressive language I got no problem with as long as the argument is addressed. I love how you give it with both barrels because you always address the point. You might agree or disagree but it is obvious from what you write you read what was written. The only posters I can't stand are the ones who say crap like Zionazi, etc. who don't address any point but seek only to provoke.

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton, The Palestinians have recognized the existence of Israel in the exchange of letters under Oslo. Israel didn't quite reciprocate, stating merely that it would open negotiations. But, either way, if you are talking with your enemy, they are talking with you, and hence each is recognizing the existence of the other. The world is not going to go to war with Israel. It doesn't need to. All it needs to do is adopt a Security Council resolution ordering Israel out of the West Bank, its settlements, its military, or both, whether in response to a Palestinian declaration of statehood or not. If Israel ignores the Security Council, some time will pass. Then the world will start to strangle Israeli commerce. Do you really imagine that 10 years hence Israel will still be occupying the West Bank, whether it succeeds in negotiating a peace agreement or not? To my mind, that is about on a par with claiming that, had the American Civil War not been fought, in the year 1900 the South would still have been holding slaves of African descent. It is ridiculous. By that point, the practice of slavery would have been so clearly an anachronism in the western world and so anathema, that the South would have had to abandon it. It might well have been a Jim Crow society, as it became, but slavery would have been impossible. The occupation of the West Bank is drawing to a close, one way or the other. Israel will either act adroitly to make the best of it, or it won't. So far, all indications are that, locked into its discussion with itself about security and unwilling to admit that it has blundered in the West Bank, Israel is determined to make the worst of it. "Do you really want the US to order Israel about?" Does what I want matter? If the perceived diplomatic price that the US pays for joining Israel in its isolation over settlements gets high enough, then the US will tell Israel what it wants. That's how it is with great powers and small powers that depend on them. And if Israel insists on defying the US, all the US has to do is open the door that it is holding shut with its back and let a little bit of the howling wind come in. * * * As usual, jackson, not being capable of a substantive response, you descend into such irrelevancies as my screen name, my tone (which seems not to be even a present issue so much as an accumulated resentment -- for what its worth, I don't like your generally sneering tone directed at other posters either, but I avoid making an issue of it), or your belief about my support for Obama. (I am in fact critical of him in many ways. That is not the same thing, however, as accepting every stupid, tendentious, self-serving, and ideologically motivated criticism as worthy. Those deserve scorn, and I scorn them.). In this case, in particular, you cannot even find any particular objection to my tone other than that you disagree with my conclusions. Basically, the moment you have to retreat to criticism of the poster, as you typically do, you merely confess your incapacity to deal with the substance. Too bad. It might be interesting to hear what you thought if you were able to think about it. My particular comment was in direct response to sighthnd, not Halevi, who said: "I don't think Klein is arguing that settlements like Yizhar, in the middle of Samaria and not on the Route 5 corridor, are needed for security purposes. I think it's more that pulling now would have no more effect of moderating the Palestinians than did pulling out of Gaza." I was pointing out that, because Halevi simply conflated settlement and security, we don't know what distinctions he might draw in that regard. * * * I have lots of problems with your screen behavior too, noga, all of which are readily excused by those who agree with you and objected to only by those who don't. Shall we revisit this? Have you too nothing of meaning to add? Or do you just imagine that you can undermine the force of what I have to say by whining about tone? Ummm, well, yes you do, because it is the best you can do.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For all the nice words, this debate boils down to the following: Risen: "The US is going to demand a Palestinian state because it's in our post-9/11 interests." Halevi: "We will, but the Palestinians and Arabs won't accept us as a Jewish state." Risen: "But I think they will" Halevi: "But what if they won't?" Halevi" "James?" Halevi: "James, are you there?"

- Lymon1

April 16, 2010 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Before the fun really starts, let us all take note that the first occasion on this thread where anyone directs criticism at another poster, rather than sticking to the discussion about Risen and Halevi, is jackson taking a poke at me (not for any specific offense here but just "in general") seconded by noga. I expect them to grow more shrill and abusive if I decline to retreat from my views, let alone re-state them. We shall see, won't we?

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi is right on almost every point. Obama and the US can support Israel's right to exist without supporting it's policies of manifest destiny to occupy areas of the West Bank. Israel has a right to pursue its (imagined or real) strategic interests but so does the US-- and their two interests now often diverge.

- drofnats1

April 16, 2010 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Or do you just imagine that you can undermine the force of what I have to say by whining about tone?" That's where you are mistaken, roi. I don't need to undermine the force of what you say because the forceful, bellicose tone of what you say plays an important role in undermining what you say. You discredit the relevance of your own arguments here by that incontinent verbal belligerence.

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“As usual, jackson, not being capable of a substantive response, you descend into such irrelevancies as my screen name, my tone (which seems not to be even a present issue so much as an accumulated resentment -- for what its worth, I don't like your generally sneering tone directed at other posters either, but I avoid making an issue of it), or your belief about my support for Obama. (I am in fact critical of him in many ways.” As usual, Bouloi is lying. My response was substantive but it wasn’t one sided. Nor did I attack other posters. As to Bouloi being “critical” of Obama that will come as a surprise to any one who has been reading attentively his posts. He also said: “The Palestinians have recognized the existence of Israel in the exchange of letters under Oslo. Israel didn't quite reciprocate, stating merely that it would open negotiations. But, either way, if you are talking with your enemy, they are talking with you, and hence each is recognizing the existence of the other.” There is a deceitful comment. The reason the PLO had to formally recognize Israel is because in its founding charter they stated unequivocally that Israel had no right to exist. Moreover, they were supposed to amend their charter and unless I missed it they never did get around to doing it. The second point that sitting down to negotiate implies recognition is what I have been arguing all along. Of course at the time Bouloi rejected my point. Now he pretends that he has discovered it all by himself. One thing is clear about Boulou the longer his comments the less sense he makes. I wonder how many court cases he actually won.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lymon1 "For all the nice words, this debate boils down to the following: Risen: "The US is going to demand a Palestinian state because it's in our post-9/11 interests." Halevi: "We will, but the Palestinians and Arabs won't accept us as a Jewish state." Risen: "But I think they will" Halevi: "But what if they won't?" Halevi" "James?" Halevi: "James, are you there?"" Cousin Lymon captured the essence of the exchnage wonderfully well.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Before the fun really starts, let us all take note that the first occasion on this thread where anyone directs criticism at another poster" Yes, let's note that jackson started by agreeing with Roi "Once in a while he will say something intelligent and I have given him credit for that." but went on to explain the difficulty with listening to roi: "I have areal problem with "rio's" tone." Is it an ad-hominen to point out someone's needlessly bellicose tone? (in my opinion, the tone of a comment is as much a target for criticism as its content.) Only the reference to roi's chosen identity may be seen as a sneer, though a very mild one, considering the record of target. BTW, not long ago another poster here referred to roi's chosen identity as indicative of something but strangely enough, roi did not pick on it. Or just ignored it. Maybe because the author of that comment was someone from roi's own camp whom roi did not wish to antagonize??

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yeah lymon, that was great. roid, a lot of that is counterfactual history (about slavery) and speculation on what will never be (the US not vetoing the UN) As to 10 years hence, provided India and Pakistan don't nuke each other, and Iran doesn't get and use a nuke precipitating a huge middle eastern conflagration...what was the question again? The world is really going to worry about the 3% of the West Bank where a few Jews are living?

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As usual, Bouloi is lying." Oh please, jackson, do you now want to pretend that, instead of making a substantive response germane to the discussion, you did not make an issue of my screen name, my tone, and what you take as my unbounded support for Obama. Read your own words, jackson. You cannot unwrite them by declaring that I am lying. You should be embarrassed to be caught out this way, and I take it, based on this latest outburst, that you are. If you think I have ever rejected the point that negotiating implies recognition, you are mistaken. You are confusing me with someone else. I just made that very point in response to blackton, not you. My pardon for failing to credit you as the first person in the planet to have had this thought. Were your feelings hurt? Surely, I must have learned it first from you and just forgotten. As to how many cases I have won, all of them.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: I was not even in the discussion and I was attacked. Well, I take that as a compliment. "disproportionate pressure on Israel" ... I'm trying to figure out what the "disproportion" is. So far as I can see, many critics of Obama or supporters of Israel appear to think that any criticism of Israel, or pressure on Israel, is unjust, unfair, unacceptable or disproportionate. But, of course, even assuming the total perfidy of all Arabs and Muslims and Europeans and Russians and liberals, it does not change the fact that Israel, in the conduct of its affairs, may well act in a way that is not consist with the US national interest; that as an ally and a friend or a "friend", the US is entitled to apply pressure, within the bounds of the law and decorum, to ensure that its national interest is protected; and that Israel, as the said friend, equally has the right to reject the advice - and accept the consequences. I cannot comment on Israeli public opinion, nor do I wish to get into the actual substance of the debate, but what I see of the uncritical defenders of Israel at least on this site is the most astonishing demand placed on any country and on any leader: uncritical and unconditional defence of an ally.

- icarusr

April 16, 2010 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

September 9, 1993 Yitzhak Rabin Prime Minister of Israel Mr. Prime Minister, The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators. In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant. Sincerely, Yasser Arafat Chairman The Palestine Liberation Organization * * * September 9, 1993 Yasser Arafat Chairman The Palestinian Liberation Organization Mr. Chairman, In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process. Yitzhak Rabin Prime Minister of Israel * * * In August 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin insisted on changes to the Charter as part of the Oslo Accords. Following Yasser Arafat's commitment to "submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval" the changes to the Charter confirming that "those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid" [4] in the September 9, 1993 letters of mutual recognition, the PNC met in Gaza and voted on 24 April 1996. The decision was adopted by a vote of: 504 in favor, 54 against, and 14 abstentions. The official English translation used by Israel, the PLO and the United States reads: "A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993. B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first session of the Palestinian Central Council."[5] [6][7] The text of the Charter at the official website of the Palestinian National Authority appends these amendments to the text of the 1968 charter; the redrafting process referred to in the second amendment still remains uncompleted.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you think I am self-refuting, then why continue your whining and self-pity, noga? The fact is you have nothing of substance to say. And I defy you to identify a word in my substantive posts here as expressed in a "needlessly bellicose tone." Go ahead, make my day. Prove to me that you are able to read critically. * * * Blackton says: "As to 10 years hence, provided India and Pakistan don't nuke each other, and Iran doesn't get and use a nuke precipitating a huge middle eastern conflagration...what was the question again? The world is really going to worry about the 3% of the West Bank where a few Jews are living?" Apparently the answer to that very question, blackton, is yes. Otherwise, the defenders of Israel no matter what would not be all exercised on that very subject. They would be unconcerned. You don't need to convince me. See if you can convince them that their agony is unnecessary.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ick "disproportionate pressure on Israel" ...The problem as I see it is not disproportionate, at this point it is any pressure at all. The US can offer its advice as it wants, but why pressure? To what ends? I simply don't see the Palestinians moving on the issue, and as to the settlements, it should be up to the Israelis to figure out for themselves that the ones that go deep into the West Bank are not in their own best interest, and many Israelis know this, our nagging them about it doesn't do much. I think a big problem is that Obama is thinking he can fix this, when no one has been able to. I have no problem with Obama pretending he is trying to fix this, but at the end of the day this is between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And lets face it, Netanyahu is in no position to do anything himself without fracturing his coalition. He is a placeholder, I am not saying this is always a bad thing, when every option has been tried what could anyone else do at this point?

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the Gentile Peanut Gallery: I started off prepared to agree with Jim. American vital interests in the Middle East cannot be subordinated to nostalgia for a "special relationship" with Israel. But Jim never addressed to Yossi's core response: "Yes, we understand that, even if we don't like it, but how exactly does it advance the peace process to make unilateral demands on Israel while essentially giving the Palestinians a free pass"? How indeed?

- Oberdier

April 16, 2010 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid, simply put outside of that region I truly don't think the world gives a rats ass about it. And yes, I have tried to convince people that the reactions that a lot of people have to Obama is overdone, that at the end of the day Israel will still do what is in its best interests, that a lot of it is just noise. That certainly doesn't mean that people won't vent. No one likes to feel put upon. Frankly, after I educated myself as to the building in North Jerusalem I thought Obama was simply looking to pick a fight with Netanyahu and that there was no real justification for it except that they don't like him. As to some posters, hell I have read posts where people claimed that the West Bank belongs to Israel because it was in the Bible. You can't reason with these people, but they are a very small minority. The vast majority of the posters here all pretty agree with the same thing, which is something akin to what Barak laid out in 2000. We are all arguing about how to get there not whether we should, so lets be fair about this.

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

", then why continue your whining and self-pity, noga? " Who is whining in self pity? You mean like you complaining to the teacher that jackson made fun of your name. He started it. And then she came along and.. and.. sniff, sniff. ____________ "And I defy you to identify a word in my substantive posts here as expressed in a "needlessly bellicose tone." "Go ahead, make my day. Prove to me that you are able to read critically."

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To recap where things stand today: Israel needs a concrete (though symbolic) concession from the Palestinians before it will come back to the table for negotiations on a comprehensive peace settlement -- like the unconditional waiver of the right of return or a waiver of the demand that Jerusalem be re-divided. Until it gets that concession, Israel will only agree to temporary housing moratoria in parts of the West Bank or other measures intended to lessen Palestinian economic hardships, but not full-scale talks. The reason for Israel's line is that it doesn't trust any Palestinian government that negotiates final status talks but hews to those demands, since these are deal killers for Israel. And, given the fragile nature of Israel's coalition governments, any talks in the absence of such concrete concessions create a real risk of cratering the ruling coalition. The Palestinians will only have final status peace talks with Israelis, because agreeing to talks on interim issues will dissipate any international pressure that could be brought on the Israelis to concede non-negotiable Palestinian demands for a state in the entire West Bank and a capital in East Jerusalem. Any concrete concessions on major issues (even symbolic ones) will rob the Palestinians of anything substantive that could be obtained in exchange during peace talks. The reason for the Palestinians' line is that they don't trust any Israeli government that negotiates peace talks, because its leaders are politically weak and any major concessions would splinter their ruling coalition and their successors would try to renege on any concessions that they don't like. And, given the fragile nature of Fatah's government in the West Bank, any concessions except in the context of final peace talks that result in an independent state may well lead to civil war and a Hamas takeover. Meanwhile, the Israel has to think about simmering potential conflict scenarios with Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran. Is it any wonder that exchanges like Halevi's and Risen's don't really get anywhere?

- wildboy

April 16, 2010 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's pretty good, wildboy. The only gloss I would add is something I have said before: Both sides seem to believe that time is on their side. At least one of them is mistaken in this belief. * * * Noga, you cannot slip the hook that easily. You began be claiming that I was needlessly bellicose. Challenged to support that, the only thing you can cite is my challenge to you to support that. Here we see on display your standard tactic. First, you pick a fight by attacking not the post but the poster. Then, when you get a response in kind, you start to complain that this illustrates the bad behavior of the person you attacked. As the exchange continues, you will get nastier and more shrill. If the response gets to be more than you can handle, you will then start to complain that the response is excessive, as thought it is your unilateral decision exactly the level of verbal violence that will be permitted. If you dial up, then up to your level is fine. If you dial down, then the response must dial down to your level. All the while claiming that you are a victim. That is why I marked the spot above to say, "Look, here is where it started." Having started on your game, it was perfectly predictable what would follow, and what will follow. I wanted others to take note. Your notion that I am complaining because you chose to make an issue of my screen name is quite misplaced. I am delighted at your complaint and jackson's. It illustrates clearly how petty you both are and your inability to respond in a manner that even you regard as persuasive. Having nothing to say, you whine about something so completely ridiculous. I called attention to just to make sure that everyone notices. How absolutely delicious! * * * Blackton, You say Israel will in the end follow its own interest. Of course, and the US will too. And part of what Israel will have to take into account in ascertaining where its best interests lie is the amount of US pressure it is prepared to sustain. Likewise, part of what the US must take into account is whether it is prepared for the spitting and complaining that its pressure will engender. I am only mystified that so many here seem to think that only Israel acts in its own interests and should and the US won't and shouldn't.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The parrot roidubouloi shrieks again: “Oh please, jackson, do you now want to pretend that, instead of making a substantive response germane to the discussion, you did not make an issue of my screen name, my tone, and what you take as my unbounded support for Obama.” My sneering at your tone is well deserved. Stop treating people you disagree with on substance with contempt and I’ll change my tone towards you. As for substance: the only substance you recognize is something that someone agrees with you. The irony here is this Obama fanatic this BOULOIS doesn’t realize that Obama’s latest stance (his administrations public chastisement of Netanyahu) has had the effect strengthened not weakened him. Obama’s move was so inept that now every time anyone in the administration mentions Netanyahu they also say how much they support Israel. So what has Obama gained by his latest outburst, aside following in Carter’s steps? Not much. Of course our in house lawyer and liar and Obama fanatic would rather attack posters here than face up to what really is happening in Washington. This from someone who calls himself a realist! (Everyone since Mearsheimer and Walt published their mendacious study about the “Israel Lobby” in the name of realism has been calling himself a realist. Of course, the term means whatever humpty dumpty wants it to mean.)

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I am only mystified that so many here seem to think that only Israel acts in its own interests and should and the US won't and shouldn't." Bouloi Who excatly thinks that the US won't and shouldn't act in its own interests? Who in fact thinks that actively supporting Israel (with arms and money) was not and is not in its own interests? (Let's remember that the US only started to actively support the Jewish State in 1967 when it won a huge victory over the Arabs.) The US has always acted in its own interest and I fail to see why it's not in its interests now to support Israel. The problem with Boulois' posts is that he tries to articulate (as best he can which usually isn't very good) at the same time both a moral as well as a "realist position" in the Arab Israeli conflict.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Boulois to Noga: "The fact is you have nothing of substance to say." Boulis to jdyer: "Oh please, jackson, do you now want to pretend that, instead of making a substantive response germane to the discussion..." I could if I had the time find another half dozen posts addressed to different posters in which he voices the same complaint. This, from someone who repeats his one point over and over again; apparently, no one except people who agree with him have substance.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My dear, jackson, you are beginning to rant uncontrollably. While apparently imagining that you have been attacked, I made a point up above of calling everyone's attention to the fact that it is you who initially started in an me rather than making any substantive response. And now you are getting excited and just engaging in more of the same poor behavior. And I still have refrained from attacking you in kind. Quite deliberately so, because your evident loss of control is much more effective than anything I could say. Merely pointing out what you are doing seems to drive you over the top. Why then, don't you stop and either make a substantive point of some kind, addressed to the issues or to my point rather than at me, or be quiet and spare yourself more distress and embarrassment.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Your notion that I am complaining because you chose to make an issue of my screen name is quite misplaced" Sorry, roi. It was not I who made an issue of your screen name. And as for your "Noga, you cannot slip the hook that easily. You began be claiming that I was needlessly bellicose" No. I "began" in - 1:02pm where there is no trace of "needlessly bellicose". That came AFTER your "needlessly bellicose" and typical comment. But facts, beginnings, sequences, causes and effects, what do they matter, right? It is also telling that you consider these kinds of verbal butchering and disregard for facts even when they are recorded on the same page as "fun". I often wonder who do you think you are, in that mind of yours. You don't get it, do you, that the effectiveness of your belligerence diminishes when you make such inflationary use of it. You need to keep intensifying the invective, the personal, in order to keep up with yourself.

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A moral and realist position: The colonization of the West Bank is both immoral and imprudent, something that has occurred merely because Israel had the power and was heedless of both morality and prudence. Now that the power is waning and the day moves closer when the piper must be paid, the defenders of this immoral and imprudent behavior would like everyone to pay no attention to it on the ground that there are worse injustices in the world. Even more implausibly, the defenders of this immoral and imprudent behavior would like now to have that which they think they can defend as just, the incorporation and settlement of east Jerusalem and environs, nicely severed from the part that they cannot defend ("Jerusalem is not a settlement.") so that they end up no worse off than if they have not overreached in the first place. They seem not to notice that with their insistence that Jerusalem is not a settlement, they implicitly undermine the legitimacy of everything else that has gone on in the West Bank. Perhaps they will get so lucky as to pull this off. Perhaps not. It reminds me of a an alternative defense I once heard about in a murder case: "It is a case of mistaken identity, not me. But, in any case, it was self-defense." Doesn't sound promising, does it?

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You still have nothing to say noga, so now you are spinning your own baseless accusation into something. Hot air. Noga says: "Sorry, roi. It was not I who made an issue of your screen name." But noga also said earlier: "Only the reference to roi's chosen identity may be seen as a sneer, though a very mild one, considering the record of target. BTW, not long ago another poster here referred to roi's chosen identity as indicative of something but strangely enough, roi did not pick on it. Or just ignored it. Maybe because the author of that comment was someone from roi's own camp whom roi did not wish to antagonize??" noga seems until to recall what noga says from one minute to the next. noga also says: "It is also telling that you consider these kinds of verbal butchering and disregard for facts even when they are recorded on the same page as "fun"." and in the same post says: "You don't get it, do you, that the effectiveness of your belligerence diminishes when you make such inflationary use of it. You need to keep intensifying the invective, the personal, in order to keep up with yourself." * * * The invective here is flowing in exactly one direction here, noga. From you and jackson at me. I have refrained to illustrate the point that you will make exactly the same accusation regardless of what is or is not said. This is a standard propaganda tactic -- to accuse others of engaging in your own discreditable behavior. You behave exactly as predicted. Now you will get even more shrill. Watch!

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another typing mistake!: "noga seems unable to recall what noga says from one minute to the next."

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is a case of mistaken identity, not me. But, in any case, it was self-defense." I doubt you can compare Jews settling in Hebron or Jerusalem to a case of mistaken identity. And settling in Hebron and Jerusalem has never been about self-defence but about what someone (you) was saying on another thread settling in "what is rightfully theirs."

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"noga seems until to recall what noga says from one minute to the next. " The development of this very important subject is right here on this page. You cannot simply reshuffle comments to fit your own narrative... roi.

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 5:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The point about the "inconsistent defenses," noga, is not that either of them applies, but that they are inconsistent. It is patently inconsistent to claim that the settlements are rightful and then to claim that building in Jerusalem cannot be the subject of objection because "Jerusalem is not a settlement." If both are rightful, then why is it relevant whether Jerusalem is a settlement? It isn't. The defense of one position impeaches the defense of the other. "And settling in Hebron and Jerusalem has never been about self-defence but about what someone (you) was saying on another thread settling in "what is rightfully theirs."" As you well know, what I have said on that other thread is that Israel can lay a just claim to the land, but not to the land without the inhabitants. Thus, if the land were incorporated into Israel and no longer considered occupied, Israeli settlement would be legitimate, but the inhabitants would then have to be accorded full political and civil rights, which Israel refuses to do. The Arabs do not have that in Hebron. The have something close (the right to claim full political rights) in Jerusalem although they are officially discriminated against in a variety of ways in order effectively to confine them to East Jerusalem. Now Israel would like to maintain the distinction that "Jerusalem is not a settlement" and therefore should be regarded differently. But as Israel has not maintained any distinction -- building Jewish homes where it claims to have incorporated the territory and even more where it claims not to have incorporated the territory -- it seems farfetched that this distinction will garner any respect from the rest of the world. * * * "The development of this very important subject is right here on this page. You cannot simply reshuffle comments to fit your own narrative" Indeed. First you sought to make some sort of issue from my screen name. Later you claimed not to have done so. You should keep better track.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bouloi is typing faster than he can think. “A moral and realist position: The colonization of the West Bank is both immoral and imprudent, something that has occurred merely because Israel had the power and was heedless of both morality and prudence.” Wrong historically. Israel took over the West Bank after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967. (This after Israeli government officials asked them to stay out of the war with Egypt and Syria.) Soon after it offered the Arab League to return all conquered territories in exchange for a peace treaty. As is well known this was refused. Some just wrote a book after Israel’s conquest of the West bank calling it the “The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977.” The title is apt. Bouloi view of history is laughably simplistic. He thinks that history starts at a certain point and that events within that history are consciously planned. There was nothing immoral in the acquisition of the West Bank. Any country that attacks another country and loses territory can’t fall back on any moral claim. This is what happens in history. Of course when it comes to the Jews new moral rules are invented and precedents are disregarded. Ironically, the there had been some long standing Jewish communities in the West bank, especially Jerusalem which in 1948 where made Juderein by the Jordanians. Those who yell the loudest about the Arab refugees never mention the Jews killed and thrown out of these areas not do they mention the half million Jews thrown out of Arab countries. Compare this to the hundred of thousand of Arabs there allowed to stay in Israel after 1948. In Boulois moral calculus its immoral for tens of thousand of Jews to live on the West Bank but it’s not immoral for more than a million Arabs to live in Israel proper. So who is immoral and who is moral in this game of history? Now, while it’s not immoral for Jews to live on the West Bank, it’s not practical for reason that I already stated elsewhere. Hence, a two State solution will necessitate for the settlers deep in the West bank to be moved back to Israel (or they can choose to become Palestinian citizens if the PA allows it). Those settlements close to Jerusalem could be annexed to Israel in exchange for an equal amount of land elsewhere. This has been the accepted formula. Obama’s meddling has had the effect of destabilizing this formula; so much for his interest in “peace!”

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Boulois doesn't seem to have anything to do except repeat himself over and over again as his comments to Noga show. I hope he gets paid by the word. It would be a waste otherwise.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, while I agree that Jews have always lived in Hebron. The settlement there today is impractical and will have to go in exchange for a peace treaty. Perhaps, after the Jews and Arabs had been living in peace for a few generations, small groups of religious Jews will be allowed to return to live and pray there again.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD - thanks! I'm more interested in what happens if Obama proposes a solution that includes the untenables on both sides. For example, a modified 2000 agreement with more land going to the Palestinians, a New York City/U.N.-type legal creation that allows Jerusalem to be undivided and Palestinian sovereignty in their parts, the Palestinians giving up the right of return and the Arab states recognizing Israel as a Jewish, independent nation in their midst. Who'd blink first?

- Lymon1

April 16, 2010 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"First you sought to make some sort of issue from my screen name." Again, it was not I who made an issue of your screen name.

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And jackson cannot think clearly whether he types quickly or slowly or, perhaps, not at all. Too overcome with emotion. The history of how Israel came into possession of the West Bank is not at all the point, something that seems to be difficult for you to grasp, jackson. If Israel were to claim the West Bank, incorporate it, extend its domestic law there, and accord the inhabitants full political and civil rights (not the right to claim them, but actual citizenship), then it might have a legitimate basis for settlement, depending on one's view of how it came into possession. We can concede for the purpose of discussion that Israel came into possession legitimately (and I think it did). Contrariwise, as long as Israel holds the land, de jure and de facto, as "occupied territory," which it does, it cannot justly settle its population there. That is colonization. The human rights of the inhabitants do not vanish even if the possession of the territory is legitimate. If the territory is occupied, then, under the 4th Geneva Convention, the occupying power may neither "transfer or deport" its population there. "Deport" clearly implies unwilling transfer. Hence, "transfer" clearly implies willing transfer. The fact that the settlers were willing therefore does not suffice to legitimize the settlement. It is unjust, and, as a violation of the human rights of the inhabitants, immoral. It is also imprudent as it has no plausible good outcome for Israel and has served isolate Israel diplomatically, making it more and more likely that, in the undoing of the illegal settlements, Israel's legitimate security concerns will not be met. Immoral and imprudent. It is not difficult jackson to make an argument based on both morality and realism if they both line up on the same side. You ought not make broad claims of this kind. If is fact specific. * * * The sputter and fury are unimpressive, jackson. Try laying out a thought clearly without all the sturm und drang, personal attacks and invective, and you will do much better.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, while I agree that Jews have always lived in Hebron. The settlement there today is impractical and will have to go in exchange for a peace treaty." Jackson, I'm not disputing with this wisdom. I'm just not in a hurry for Jews to renounce their historical rights in the WB. If the Palestinians, however, give up their dreams of Haifa and Beer Sheva, completely and without some Hudaybiyyish undertones then, I see no reason why WB settlements cannot be vacated in the style of the Gaza withdrawal. Needless to say, the settlements along the green line will be incorporated into Israel. An exchange, or mutual cancellation, of rights. My vision is of two new cities being constructed, one in the Negev and another in the Galilee to accommodate the influx of evacuees. If it's done with care and love, it does not have to be too painful and the new cities can be seen as the epitome of the Zionist project, the final stop, the arrival, so to speak.

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Needless to say, the settlements along the green line will be incorporated into Israel." Maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether Israel can negotiate this deal, which doesn't appear very promising at the moment. If not, then as Ginzy has suggested, there is a significant likelihood that the Palestinians will declare statehood, that will be recognized by most of the world, and the Security Council will begin to force Israel out of the West Bank, to exactly what line, we cannot say.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lymon!: excellent Haiku summary of Risen v Klein Jackson: guess you missed the Second Night of Passover thread where Roid explained his use of Peretz's blog to practice his persuasive rhetoric using tit-for-tat technique. It is really so much easier to just not read Roid's comments when he is in that mode, which is certainly the case this afternoon. So, Lymon1 now poses an interesting hypothetical at 6:39 p.m.If Obama did propose all of that, which is highly unlikely, I do not think anyone would blink in Obama's direction because they would all be too busy studying Chinese. Seriously Lymon1 (and anyone else), doesn't Obama have to propose all of that with a very clear OR ELSE? What would be the OR ELSE? Frozen conflicts are an art form, and I no longer believe America has any business trying to solve this one. What Obama said Tuesday means the U.S. is no longer neutral. Plus I assume he is in Financial Reform week while trying to figure out if Pakistan is devolving into multi-stans while the ISI sabotages Karzai's jirga. I forget what else. I took the afternoon off and wound up getting pigeon-holed by a Jehovah's Witness who assured me armeggedon is close, and the righteous will survive in a world free of conflict. and, possibly a world free of Goldman Sachs. I'll be back except I want to watch Eastern Promises again tonight. Time for some Russian gangsters who make the mafia look like the good guys. BTW, if Roid is reading this, using American slavery as an analogy is weak. Try Han Chinese settlement patterns into Tibet, and the Uighur areas. Legal slavery was already ending by the 1850's thanks to the example of German cotton farmers in Texas (I am in my Bronx hovel and my library is in my Massachusetts bunker). Does not mean that Reconstruction sharecropping was any better for either the freed slaves or the poor whites who got dragged into the Civil War.

- K2K

April 16, 2010 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, I once knew an old lady who was born in Hebron and was among the Jews who had lived there for centuries and whose family had to flee the massacres. She was a very impressive Sephardic old lady with an ancient Sephardic name. Her daughter was a friend of mine. Needless to day, they were both very Likud in their politics. She is probably dead by now and I don't see her daughter intending to reclaim the property there. She has a very nice house near Petach-Tiqva. As you know, there are no Jewish refugees in refugee camps in Israel, for some reason.

- noga1

April 16, 2010 at 7:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "And jackson cannot think clearly whether he types quickly or slowly or, perhaps, not at all. Too overcome with emotion." Ha, ha, ha, funniest thing Boulou ever wrote. Overcome by something the Bouboirbore wrote? Now, that's a good one.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The history of how Israel came into possession of the West Bank is not at all the point, something that seems to be difficult for you to grasp, jackson." It was your main point, even if you don't know it. You were arguing the immorality of Israel's occupation. That means to any rational and intelligent person that the acquiring of the land was both not legal and not moral. This is far from being true. "If Israel were to claim the West Bank, incorporate it, extend its domestic law there, and accord the inhabitants full political and civil rights (not the right to claim them, but actual citizenship), then it might have a legitimate basis for settlement, depending on one's view of how it came into possession. We can concede for the purpose of discussion that Israel came into possession legitimately (and I think it did)." This doesn't follow from what you said earlier. Israel has repeatedly said that it would not incorporate the West bank into Israel. It has always hoped to negotiate its return to the Arabs. You are not too stupid to understand this, are you?

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is not difficult jackson to make an argument based on both morality and realism if they both line up on the same side." Boulois But they rarely do. Study history.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw: only religious people and Hegel and some of his Marxist heirs believe that morality and realism go together.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 7:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hey lymon, you can't steal my ideas, I said that first. ha. I am with K2K on this though, there is no OR ELSE so time to put down the fork and back away from the table. jackson: Those settlements close to Jerusalem could be annexed to Israel in exchange for an equal amount of land elsewhere. This has been the accepted formula. One little quibble, provided the inhabitants of those parts of what is now Israel proper are allowed to resettle elsewhere in Israel and paid accordingly in order to do so, or given guarantee that their security will be provided for. I have little faith in how these Israeli Arabs would be treated by their new PLO overlords.

- blackton

April 16, 2010 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton “One little quibble, provided the inhabitants of those parts of what is now Israel proper are allowed to resettle elsewhere in Israel and paid accordingly in order to do so, or given guarantee that their security will be provided for. I have little faith in how these Israeli Arabs would be treated by their new PLO overlords.” That is a sticking point. One the more cogent arguments against the Oslo accords came from Arabs on the West Bank, mostly village elders who didn’t like the idea of the PLO coming in and taking over. They saw them as ruthless gangsters which they were and were bitter against the Israelis for empowering them. Of course these same people hadn’t wanted to take the responsibility of creating their own governing authority in order to negotiate with the Israelis. They were afraid, rightly no doubt, that they would be killed. So much for morality and realism; people (like Bouloi) who reduce the complex issues involved in the Arab Israeli conflict to a simplistic moral argument usually end up offering up either historically ignorant notions, or immoral ones.

- jdyer

April 16, 2010 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...For all the nice words, this debate boils down to the following: Risen: "The US is going to demand a Palestinian state because it's in our post-9/11 interests." Halevi: "We will, but the Palestinians and Arabs won't accept us as a Jewish state." Risen: "But I think they will" Halevi: "But what if they won't?" Halevi" "James?" Halevi: "James, are you there?".. Exactly, as others have noted. Sorry, K2K, (and Blackton too) I would have responded to your initial answer to me but between this morning and now, this thread has exploded, as is not unusal here, and it--any of my answers back-- all seem anti climactic, with most things said. Some of you may want to consider simply not responding, shunning, posters who are needlessly aggressive and insulting and who make the exchange of different views and arguments more trouble and unpleasant than it's worth. I do.

- basman

April 16, 2010 at 9:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton: "open up discussions on the possibility of some limited right of return" Israel has already been doing so, for years. However, I don't remember the details. I believe the programme is tied to family re-unification and/or property claims, and that the numbers are about 100,000.

- TNR.Reader

April 16, 2010 at 10:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are just very confused, jackson, and reduced to the truly juvenile behavior of making up what you imagine are funny names for me. Doesn't that make you feel foolish? It should. As to your confusion, you say this, first quoting me: "The history of how Israel came into possession of the West Bank is not at all the point, something that seems to be difficult for you to grasp, jackson." It was your main point, even if you don't know it. You were arguing the immorality of Israel's occupation. That means to any rational and intelligent person that the acquiring of the land was both not legal and not moral. This is far from being true. No, I did not claim that the occupation is immoral or illegal. I said that the "colonization" is immoral and, somewhat later on, that it is illegal under the 4th Geneva Convention. "The colonization of the West Bank is both immoral and imprudent, something that has occurred merely because Israel had the power and was heedless of both morality and prudence." Like Klein Halevi, you conveniently gloss over the difference between military occupation, which would be legal until such time as the occupying power can withdraw in safety, and colonization, the settlement of one's own population in occupied territory. The Geneva Convention acknowledges that occupation can be legitimate but none-the-less imposes certain duties upon the occupying power. Among those duties are not to transfer its own population into the occupied territory. This is the sham that Israel attempts to foist on the world -- ignoring the distinction between what it is entitled to do as occupying power in the name of its legitimate security needs and colonization of the occupied territory which is flatly prohibited. Needless to say, the world outside Israel does not buy this attempt to re-brand colonization as permitted to an occupying power. And, you have no answer, jackson,because there is no answer. International law is unambiguous on the point, on the human rights that an occupied people retains even under occupation. You can only fulminate, call me names, and attempt to mis-state the point so that you can then argue with your invented version. Basically, jackson, you have no idea what you are talking about. None. And your juvenile behavior does not improve upon your evident ignorance and irrationality.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When I look back at this thread, it is no wonder that Israel is in a bad spot destined to get worse. There is no possibility of talking to the true-believers without them flying into a rage when confronted with inconvenient facts that they can not explain or justify. Nor does it make the slightest bit of difference what tone is adopted. You will all always attempt to divert attention away from the post to the poster because you are incapable of addressing the truth, or even a claim about the truth. I cannot recall ever encountering so much foolishness in such a small space. All of you imagine yourselves to be Israel's greatest and true friends. All of you are in fact doing your little share to drag Israel into further isolation and increasingly dire circumstances. It is shameful behavior.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton says: "Those settlements close to Jerusalem could be annexed to Israel in exchange for an equal amount of land elsewhere. This has been the accepted formula." Accepted by whom? Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak? Apparently the "accepted formula" has yet to be accepted except by those who find it acceptable. If it were the "accepted formula," the matter would not still be in dispute.

- roidubouloi

April 16, 2010 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson says: "Overcome by something the Bouboirbore wrote? Now, that's a good one." And yet, as we see above, pretty much everything I write in fact provokes you into furious rage and incoherence. If you are not overcome with emotion, jackson, then you must simply be incoherent.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 12:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Goodnight children.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 12:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, like all anti-Semites, is a shameless liar. Question for roi the swastika boy. What have the Jews ever done to you that you hate them so? What have the Islamofascists done for you that you continually bend over and kiss their behinds? God bless jdyer and noga1 for having the courage to stand up for honor, truth, decency and humanity.

- bulbman1066

April 17, 2010 at 1:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid 11:55pm:"There is no possibility of talking to the true-believers without them flying into a rage when confronted with inconvenient facts that they can not explain or justify." Does that NOT apply to the Palestinians, to Roid, to Code Pink? Time to curl up with George Orwell's essay on political language...while hoping the citizens of Ariel file suit in Geneva to clarify the 4th Geneva Convention on language regarding transfers of population. Professor Phillips can make that a worthwhile lawsuit.

- K2K

April 17, 2010 at 9:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi is not antisemitic nor is he a self hating Jew. Nor does he suffer from the Jew-flu. He is something else altogether. He is a shallow, single-minded, cold-hearted, polemical prosecutor who thinks he understands Obama's "liberal" worldview about the I/P conflict. He seeks to represent this view with relentless brutality, and by any means possible. Thus you find that in order to be effective, he is willing to borrow the language and arguments of Israel's worst enemies while constantly and ruthlessly trying to beat down any other, less radical, theses and views. He is willing to overlook the importance of recent history, unless there is something in it that he can utilize for his own theories. It's what unscrupulous prosecutors do. They try to highlight certain facts and provide certain scenarios that enhance intentionality behind those facts. For some prosecutors, truth and justice are less important, if at all, in their ambitious drive to win. There is a schizophrenic element in roi's polemics about the I/P conflict. He impressed many posters here with his history of Jewish claims to Jerusalem and the WB. But then he impressed even more posters with his attempts to analyse the I/P conflict in Abu-Nimah's terms, making much use of terms like colonization, and apartheid and human rights, in the process undercutting every single claim he made on behalf of Jewish history and what Jews are entitled to in that respect. It does not cohere. He seeks to cut artificially the second from the first, as though the one has nothing to do with the latter. Jewish history, Jewish suffering, are there but they do not matter. For roi, history began again, in 1969, when Levi Eshkol allowed the first settlement in the occupied territory to go ahead. The moment that Jews could have unfettered access to their historical heartland became the moment that, for roi, they were no longer entitled to their history and rights. And in order to drive the point he is perfectly willing to use the criminally-loaded term "colonization" by which to describe settlements not just in the WB but in Jerusalem as well. He has no scruples applying "colonization" to Jews living in Jewish neigborhoods in Jerusalem. It's all part of the "game" he plays.

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 9:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe it is Chauvinism: "... an extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group."

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thank you noga, a coherent summary. I might add that roid uses TNR.com as his "game" venue because of his unforgiving personal vendetta against Martin Peretz. which appears to be a waste of time since Peretz never adds a comment, an admittedly weak indicator that Peretz does not read any comments attached to his posts, or other TNR posts like this one that are outside The Spine, but about Israel. Again, kudos to Lymon1 for his Haiku analysis of this post. really superb.

- K2K

April 17, 2010 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Orwell: " It is important not to misunderstand their motives, or one cannot predict their actions. What is to be expected of them is not treachery, or physical cowardice, but stupidity, unconscious sabotage, an infallible instinct for doing the wrong thing. They are not wicked, or not altogether wicked; they are merely unteachable."

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bouloi “And yet, as we see above, pretty much everything I write in fact provokes you into furious rage and incoherence. If you are not overcome with emotion, jackson, then you must simply be incoherent.” Another funny Bouloi retort: Bouloi you have the habit of describing other posts according to set formulas without offering specifics. What you said to me above is the kind of thing you say to other posters who question your point of view on any topic. I have already said that your position on Israel was incoherent. Now you accuse me of being incoherent. Using tu quoque arguments is another one of your bad habits. It’s not unusual for Obama defenders and malicious critics of Israel to describe their opponents as “angry and full of rage.” And you Bouloi are no different from the run of the mill Obama defender. Any criticism of Obama no matter how minor drives you to type reams of incoherent a-historical and illogical nonsense. Finally, your hysterical anger is in evidence in the nasty tone you adopt towards those posters who dare to criticize you.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is a schizophrenic element in roi's polemics about the I/P conflict." Excellent point, Noga. The schizophrenic element is driven by a hysterical inability to confront the reality of Obama’s policies towards Israel.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If I know anything about our roi (Rumpole would have called him, affectionately, "The mad bull"), he will come back charging me with schizophrenia, treachery, cowardice, stupidity, unconscious sabotage, an infallible instinct for doing the wrong thing... I strongly suspect he fancies himself a master at rhetorical Jiujitsu.

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the post and ensuing discussion had nowhere to do but down after this brilliant summary which deserves its fourth or fifth cut&paste: Risen: "The US is going to demand a Palestinian state because it's in our post-9/11 interests." Halevi: "We will, but the Palestinians and Arabs won't accept us as a Jewish state." Risen: "But I think they will" Halevi: "But what if they won't?" Halevi" "James?" Halevi: "James, are you there?"..

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bouloi: “Blackton says: "Those settlements close to Jerusalem could be annexed to Israel in exchange for an equal amount of land elsewhere. This has been the accepted formula." Accepted by whom? Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak? Apparently the "accepted formula" has yet to be accepted except by those who find it acceptable. If it were the "accepted formula," the matter would not still be in dispute.” Yes, accepted by the Israeli negotiators and by the American mediators. That the Palestinian side hadn’t accepted that proposal yet doesn’t make it invalid. Bouloi writes as if he were on the Palestinian negotiating team.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

04/16/2010 - 11:46pm EDT | roidubouloi bouloi the king of snide says: “You are just very confused, jackson, and reduced to the truly juvenile behavior of making up what you imagine are funny names for me. Doesn't that make you feel foolish? It should.” This is how he begins his long flawed and contradictory screed about the immorality of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. He expects me to respond civilly to his contemptuous opening. He is as deluded about this as he is about everything else he posts. Now he goes to state that I put forth arguments without knowing it. Of course he knows better than me what I am arguing for and against: “It was your main point, (Kingbouloi says) even if you don't know it. You were arguing the immorality of Israel's occupation. That means to any rational and intelligent person that the acquiring of the land was both not legal and not moral. This is far from being true.” So even thought I said that the Israeli occupation was neither immoral nor illegal, Kingbouloi, has decided that I meant the opposite. Now how does he prove it? He doesn’t he goes on to say that: “No, I did not claim that the occupation is immoral or illegal. I said that the "colonization" is immoral and, somewhat later on, that it is illegal under the 4th Geneva Convention.” Notice how he changed the topic from what he claims I said to what he said about the same topic. This isn’t just rhetorically clumsy it is deceptive reasoning. Now given that what he calls the “colonization” of the West Bank is not official policy of the Israeli government and that there is no master plan to colonize that territory, it is fallacious to call the settlements there, (most of which will be dismantled as soon as a peace accord is reached) a colonization project. Moreover, whether the 4th Geneva convention applies here is under debate and there is no agreement is sight: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva.html Now King bouloi goes on to quote someone else (Halevi as if he were me) "The colonization of the West Bank is both immoral and imprudent, something that has occurred merely because Israel had the power and was heedless of both morality and prudence." Then he Kingbouloie comments: “Like Klein Halevi, you conveniently gloss over the difference between military occupation, which would be legal until such time as the occupying power can withdraw in safety, and colonization, the settlement of one's own population in occupied territory. The Geneva Convention acknowledges that occupation can be legitimate but none-the-less imposes certain duties upon the occupying power. Among those duties are not to transfer its own population into the occupied territory.” Whether or not Halevi glossed over anything, I’ll to the readers to decide. ( I don’t believe he had since the issue didn’t come up in his debate with James Risen—although Kingboulois likes to think that he knows better than the debaters themselves what they are really arguing about.) In any case, Kingbouloi by way of response to this supposed argument (notice that he is really arguing with himself) merely repeats what he said above. (Repetition along with snide commentary is his main rhetorical strategy.) However as I said above not everyone agrees that the 4th Geneva Convention applies in this case. The rest of his screed is more of the same. Except that he goes on to make a pretty lame claim that: “And, you have no answer, jackson,because there is no answer. International law is unambiguous on the point, on the human rights that an occupied people retains even under occupation….” Is international law unambiguous? This is far from being the case. If laws were unambiguous than we wouldn’t need lawyers and courts in which to argue case, all we would need would be administrative courts, of the kind they had in the Soviet Union, in which decisions would be taken without argument and sentences imposed without the rights of appeal. Finally, the King of Bouloi and snide has the temerity, after spending more than an hour typing out insults to accuse me of insulting him: “You can only fulminate, call me names, and attempt to mis-state the point so that you can then argue with your invented version.” This was a typical King of the Bullies post. He posts this way in order to get his interlocutors angry so that he can then accuse them of, well being angry. How can any debater take him seriously?

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson says: "He expects me to respond civilly to his contemptuous opening." On the contrary, I don't expect you to respond civilly to anything you don't agree with regardless of who says it, because you are uncivil and visibly not in control of yourself. As for your "insulting me," don't be silly you poor child. You cannot insult me any more than a petulant two-year old could do so. I merely call attention to your incontinence because it discredits you. "How can any debater take him seriously," says you. You imagine that what you do could be considered debate by anyone who can get two synapses to fire in a row? How silly you are. * * * Jackson, in a singularly lucid moment for him, also says: "Those settlements close to Jerusalem could be annexed to Israel in exchange for an equal amount of land elsewhere. This has been the accepted formula." To which I responded: "Accepted by whom? Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak? Apparently the "accepted formula" has yet to be accepted except by those who find it acceptable. If it were the "accepted formula," the matter would not still be in dispute.” To which jackson then responds: "Yes, accepted by the Israeli negotiators and by the American mediators. That the Palestinian side hadn’t accepted that proposal yet doesn’t make it invalid." No, jackson, it doesn't make it "invalid," whatever that could possibly mean in this context, the fact that it is not accepted just makes it not accepted. You really do have quite the talent for "debate," don't you? * * * To the little howling mob gathered here, this is from a related thread. Read and learn. At least you will not be so pitifully ignorant as you howl along: K2K quotes me saying this: "I have noted that colonizing the West Bank is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention." To which K2K responds thusly: "Better lawyers disagree with roid's core belief." * * * K2K, To the extent there is any disagreement about the application of the 4th Geneva Convention to the conduct of Israel, I am sure you have no idea what the nature of the agreement is. So, let me enlighten you: It is essentially a disagreement about the scope of the jurisdiction of the Convention, not about whether, if the Convention applies to the territory in question, the particular conduct would violate this provision: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." On the jurisdictional question, the International Court of Justice, in the case regarding the separation barrier, has actually ruled against the Israeli position, holding that the Convention does apply because both Jordan and Israel were High Contracting Parties at the outbreak of the Six Day War. Of course, as with US Supreme Court opinions, lawyers may continue to disagree and argue about the opinion. Unlike the US Supreme Court, which has at least the formal authority to order a remedy for a violation of law -- even if the executive branch must then execute the remedy -- the ICJ has no such authority. Once the court has ruled, it is up to the Security Council to decide on enforcement, if any. It is for this reason that nothing has been done in response to the ICJ ruling; the US will not permit it. It is also for this reason that I have repeatedly pointed out that the only thing that stands between Israel and a world from which it has become totally isolated is the US and its veto power. Although the court did not need to reach the question whether the Convention would apply if there were a High Contracting Party on one side and "unallocated territory" on the other, there is a very good chance that the result would be the same because the Convention is on the subject of human rights of people, not the sovereign rights of states. It is not likely that the ICJ would rule that a High Contracting Party is free to violate human rights as long as it does so in territory that is not claimed by another High Contracting Party. Leaving aside the formalities of jurisdiction, Israel has placed itself in the position of of committing what would be an unambiguous violation but for the jurisdictional issue. No friend of Israel should take comfort in that. The political nature of the enforcement of the Convention also makes clear the fecklessness of Israeli policy. In the end, what matters is what the Security Council and the world in general do. President Obama has more or less declared that Israel cannot expect that its legal views of territory east of the Green Line will be defended by the US. It will not matter how many apartments Israel builds between now and the final resolution. If the US does not interpose itself to defend the Israeli view, then Israel will ultimately be forced to concede. Were it a matter of life and death, perhaps not. But it isn't. As the enforcement is political, it also may not matter at some point whether the US interposes a veto or not. A resolution in the Security Council that receives every vote but that of the US would have a considerable impact over time even if it is not adopted as the formal act of the Security Council by virtue of the US veto. Politics cuts in many directions. For Israel to have alienated the entire world for the West Bank settlements was an act of monumental hubris and stupidity. Israel may yet escape the worst of the possible consequences of its actions, but, if it hopes to do so, a good place to start would be by doing whatever it can to sustain the goodwill of its super-power patron. Try explaining that to Netanyahu and his cohort of messianic nuts. * * * Now, go back to your howling, your invective, your name-calling, your pseud-psychoanalysis of me -- indeed, everything that you find much more congenial than the perilous position of Israel and its own role in creating its peril. You are a pathetic lot, truly, you self-proclaimed friends of Israel. The thing most risible is that you fancy yourselves as "debaters." The moment you encounter any serious argument you run screaming and crying in a circle, unable to muster anything more than imprecations. Even Republicans display more spine than you. Thank god none of you actually has any responsibility for the defense of Israel.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention stated in 2001: -- 2. In accordance with a number of resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council and by the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which reflect the view of the international community, the ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem. This Convention, ratified by Israel in 1951, remains fully applicable and relevant in the current context of violence. As an Occupying Power, Israel is also bound by other customary rules relating to occupation, expressed in the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907. http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/57JRGW?OpenDocument Consequently, there is no doubt that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territories including East Jerusalem. Of course, people are free to lie about that status. And lie is the operative word given the number of times this fact has been demonstrated on comments threads on The Spine. There is no arguing with a liar because the liar can "prove" anything from his (or her) lie. Until the cessation of the conflict Israel has a legal right to occupy militarily the Palestinian Territories. It has no right to colonize the Occupied Palestiniant Territories with its civilian population. That is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and is a war crime. Indeed, the Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories has been the most sustained and significant war crime committed by any Western nation since the end of the German occupation of Europe.

- ndmackenzie

April 17, 2010 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You may find this useful, roi. While it generates your insults for you, you can put the time it saves you to some good use by taking a short nap: http://www.trevorstone.org/curse/

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In accordance with a number of resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly " "...number of resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly " "...adopted by the United Nations General Assembly "?? "Israel is the target of at least 65 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of none." http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html Why is that? "Debates on Israel abound, and the Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State. But not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. What takes place in the Security Council “more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving,” declared former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.15 The Arab League contingent on the Council has been reinforced by members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and “nonaligned” governments that do not recognize Israel. Since the end of 1991, leading nonaligned nations such as India and China have established diplomatic ties with Israel; the Soviet Union, which broke off relations with the Jewish State after the Six-Day War, was replaced on the panel by Russia, which has full diplomatic relations with Israel. Though it was hoped this might result in a more balanced handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict by the Security Council, that has not been the case as Russia has continued to vote consistently against Israel. In 2003, Israel sought to gain support for a resolution of its own, the first it had introduced since 1976. The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, but it did not receive enough support from the members of the General Assembly to even come to a vote. Israel had introduced the resolution in response to the murder of hundreds of Israeli children in terrorist attacks, and after a similar resolution had been adopted on November 6, 2003, calling for the protection of Palestinian children from "Israeli aggression." Israel's ambassador withdrew the proposed draft after it became clear that members of the nonaligned movement were determined to revise it in such a way that it would have ultimately been critical of Israel.16" http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is a very curious argument that the number of wrongs committed against Israel, be they political wrongs or violent wrongs, justify Israeli violations of human rights, or that friends of Israel should refrain from observing Israeli violations of human rights for that reason. It should make and true friend of Israel ashamed.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 3:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, I'm sure ndmackenzie is a true friend of Israel.

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I disagree with ndmackenzie regarding the application of the 4the Geneva Convention to the territories annexed by Israel to which it has extended its municipal law. Regardless of the legality of the annexation (a question that I simply am not addressing here), if the territory has been annexed and incorporated, then I do not believe it is correct that there is a state of war there or any longer an "occupation" within the meaning of the 4th Geneva Convention. There are certainly other human rights laws that apply, but the condition that makes the 4th Geneva Convention applicable has lapsed. The legality of the annexation is a different matter.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is a very curious argument that the number of wrongs committed against Israel, be they political wrongs or violent wrongs, justify Israeli violations of human rights, or that friends of Israel should refrain from observing Israeli violations of human rights for that reason. It should make any true friend of Israel ashamed.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"is a very curious argument that the number of wrongs committed against Israel, be they political wrongs or violent wrongs, justify Israeli violations of human rights" Violent wrongs committed against Israel are the reason why Israel builds a barrier, erects checkpoints, conducts excursions into Palestinian territories, and even resorts to assassinations, all of which are considered by upholders of Human Rights to be in violation of human rights. In what way is building in a Jewish neighbourhood in Jerusalem, or even in Hebron, a violation of Palestinians' human rights?

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I also disagree with this claim by ndmackenzie: "Indeed, the Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories has been the most sustained and significant war crime committed by any Western nation since the end of the German occupation of Europe." Most important, I do not accept that anything that is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention is a war crime. The Israeli settlement of territory that Israel itself regards as occupied is a human rights violation. Not every human rights violation is a crime or a war crime, particularly where it involves no use of violence. However, even if one accepted, for the sake of argument, ndmackenzie's assertion that the settlements are a war crime, if one were to list Western war crimes since the end of German occupation, there are quite a few that are far more grave. These would include at the top of the list the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Iraqis at the hands of the US in an "aggressive war" that had no Security Council sanction, no permitted defensive purpose under the UN charter, and no humanitarian purpose under the emerging doctrine of intervention to prevent humanitarian disaster. Even the Bush administration was unwilling to claim either of the latter two as justification. Rather, it argued that the 1991 authorization of the Gulf War in that year constituted authorization of the 2003 invasion. This was a preposterous argument on many grounds. There is also the conduct of the French war in Algeria, the conduct of the war in Vietnam, and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (unless ndmackenzie would like to exclude Russia from the west). There are also the violent war crimes committed by the Arabs against Israel, but then we have the conundrum that, according to ndmackenzie, Israel is a "western nation" and the Arabs are, one infers, not, despite being in many cases a lot further west. ndmackenzie's claim smacks of racism in supposing that only war crimes committed by certain nations are worthy of being deplored, even if the nations involved are signatories to the Geneva Conventions.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Building a neighborhood in Hebron that is settled by citizens of Israel is the transfer of Israeli civilian population into territory that Israel itself considers "occupied," not a part of Israel. As such it is a violation of the human rights of the population of the occupied territory, as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention to which Israel is a High Contracting Party. It is my opinion that the same cannot be said of Israeli population settling in the portions of Jerusalem and environs that have been incorporated into Israel and to which it extends its municipal law. Regardless of the legality of the annexation, this territory is no longer occupied within the meaning of the 4th Geneva Convention. However, in order not to commit the crime of apartheid, Israel must accord the inhabitants of the annexed territory full political and civil rights. It has not fully complied with this obligation in that the Arab inhabitants of east Jerusalem have the right to claim Israeli citizenship, but have not simply been accorded the status of Israeli citizens, as they should have been whether or not they choose to exercise their rights as citizens. For example, a person born in the US is under law a US citizen without need of any affirmative act. When US territorial possessions were incorporated into the US, the inhabitants on the date of incorporation were automatically accorded citizenship and were, if they were born in that territory, considered native born Americans rather than naturalized Americans. Despite the shortfall in the case of Jerusalem, I would not characterize this failure as constituting the crime of apartheid. Not every violation of rights rises to the level of a war crime or a crime against humanity.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “My dear, jackson, you are beginning to rant uncontrollably.” My, my, this is the kindest thing kingbouloi has said today. Rant uncontrollably? This, from a man who has been posting non stop. Since I last posted he had come up with four non stop attacks on me and Noga. Yes, I have attacked you but why can’t you own up to the fact that you have attacked me almost non stop? You have also attacked anyone who disagrees with anything you say. You do know that don’t you? You are not that far gone, are you?

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “It is a very curious argument that the number of wrongs committed against Israel, be they political wrongs or violent wrongs, justify Israeli violations of human rights, or that friends of Israel should refrain from observing Israeli violations of human rights for that reason.” I don’t know anyone who has argued this point. The fact that both sides have violated human rights means that they are engaged in a bitter struggle. I know of no war were both sides have not violated human rights. “It should make and true friend of Israel ashamed.” The fact that Kingbouloi believes that Israel should be super a super human State and behave in an angelic manner during war time doesn’t make him a friend of Israel.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Give it up kingbouloi, you make yourself more ridiculous with every post. The kindest thing I can say about you is to quote what you said about yourself, elsewhere during the Passover season. You said you are Jewish but no too Jewish. In the same way you are a friend of Israel, but not too much of a friend of Israel, and apparently you are a lawyer but not too much of a lawyer. When mackenzie can mistake your argument for one of his, you have achieved what you were hoping not to be seen as being too much of a friend of Israel. The only thing you are too much of is a pompous ass. Take your meds, and take a break, buster. It may improve the coherence of your posts.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, let's not trust Alison Weir's website, "If Americans Knew," even for simple stats. Weir and her organisation are commonly considered "anti-Semite(s) extraordinaire": http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=225

- TNR.Reader

April 17, 2010 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Once again, I find myself in comlee agreement with Blackton: "I mean damn, what planet has he been living on? At its very inception Israel opened itself up to the Middle East, in fact Israel has opened itself up so much it makes Messalina look like a chaste virgin. The US has no right to force anyone to do anything besides not attack us or our allies"

- TNR.Reader

April 17, 2010 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And you, jackson, are a rambling, incoherent mess, on a good day, far beyond the reach of medication. I wouldn't call you a liar, even though you string one falsehood together with another in an unending stream. You are simply a gibbering idiot whose one thought barely connects to the next. You cannot even keep track of which are your thoughts and utterances and which are mine. It is all just a huge jumble in your tangled brain. * * * It is not the fact that Israel is not angelic or super-human that is the cause for shame. It is the justification of error based on someone else's worse behavior, or to be defended on such a basis, that is the cause for shame Violations of human rights are to be deplored by decent people, not justified on the grounds that other people have done worse. By that measure, everything short of chopping off the hands of children with machetes or murdering people by the thousands in gas chambers is perfectly acceptable. But then, jackson, even the simplest of moral principles eludes you. So, foam away, little jackson. Your fever may break eventually.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The US has no right to force anyone to do anything besides not attack us or our allies." If by this one means military force or acts of war, this is true. But the US has every right, as does every other state, to barter its political and economic support for anything it considers in its interests that does not in and of itself violate human rights.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 5:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “And you, jackson, are a rambling, incoherent mess, on a good day, far beyond the reach of medication” More of the same from Kingbouloi. And he answers with the same old repetitive nonsense. “It is not the fact that Israel is not angelic or super-human that is the cause for shame. It is the justification of error based on someone else's worse behavior,…” Really, and when did Israel do that? Or should they apologize for what you think are errors it committed? Here again we have a lawyer who thinks that he can decide all by his lonesome self who it guilty and who is innocent, who commits errors and who doesn’t. Pathetic. Must have next to the bottom of his graduating class in law school. Keep trying, though you may just get it right, accidently sometime. It happens to every dummy once in a lifetime. Even a law dummy.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “"The US has no right to force anyone to do anything besides not attack us or our allies." If by this one means military force or acts of war, this is true. But the US has every right, as does every other state, to barter its political and economic support for anything it considers in its interests that does not in and of itself violate human rights.” So who is going to decide what does not “in and of itself violate human rights?” And by making the ideal of “human rights” the arbiter of policy how does this conform to a realist view of world affairs? And how does this apply to the US Israel alliance? I am afraid I’ll probably get another ten pompous page dissertation on the subject that repeats his one point ad nauseam.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, jackson, right at the top of the class at one of the best, most prestigious law schools in the country, an achievement so far beyond your abilities that you cannot even imagine it. jackson says: "It is not the fact that Israel is not angelic or super-human that is the cause for shame. It is the justification of error based on someone else's worse behavior,… Really, and when did Israel do that?" Quite right, jackson. Isreal isn't posting here, and there is no reason for the people Israel to feel any shame on account of the idiocies of the posters here who purport to be defending it of they don't concur. It is the posters who advance such morally obtuse arguments who need to be ashamed of themselves. That, needless to say, includes you. But, one should hesitate to refer to you as obtuse. Even that requires a level of coherence that you don't possess.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez, jackson, even the simplest idea is too much for you. If it is not an act of war, that is, something in derogation of the rights of another state, or a violation of human rights, something in derogation of the rights of human beings as individuals, then it is something that a state can properly do. As to who decides, everyone gets to have an opinion. In some circumstances, there are international bodies or courts of law that decide. Sometimes those decisions will be enforced. Sometimes they won't be. It is an imperfect world.

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, let's not trust Alison Weir's website, "If Americans Knew," I cited on purpose an anti-Israel website.

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So. Does anybody wish to debate the issues? Or discuss the article? Or are we just going to have One Of Those Threads?

- Sophia

April 17, 2010 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, my apologies - you were way ahead of me.

- TNR.Reader

April 17, 2010 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My last post was addressed to Noga, of course.

- TNR.Reader

April 17, 2010 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ububouloi "Actually, jackson, right at the top of the class at one of the best, most prestigious law schools in the country, an achievement so far beyond your abilities that you cannot even imagine it." That being the case, if it is the case, you mental abilities have deteriorated quite haven't they. You try to make up through the use of insults and bullying people into agreement. It’s not working; even someone as dim as you are today should be able to see that. I have noticed that those who rely on deontological arguments are also some of the most unscrupulous debaters.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Quite right, jackson. Isreal isn't posting here,…” The old boy has noticed that “Israel” isn’t posting here, which is to say he has wasted all that typing. But then he doesn't seem to have much to do except type and scream and type. Poor old boy. Take you meds, King-bull-shitter.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“As to who decides, everyone gets to have an opinion. “ Roibull Yes, and this is why you think you have the right to dictate opinions about ethics and morality to everyone else. As we used to say in the army, “opinions are like assholes, and they all stink.” “In some circumstances, there are international bodies or courts of law that decide. Sometimes those decisions will be enforced. Sometimes they won't be. It is an imperfect world.” Sure they do after the fact, after the hundreds of thousands Tutsis dead it was decided to punish a few murderers. Yes, it’s an imperfect world isn’t it?

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: "One Of Those Threads" is only one in many threads, alas, in which the air is sucked out of the discussion by our residential alazon. He needs so much space and attention, and he "gives with such supple confusions/ That the giving famishes the craving."

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back to the article. Risen and Obama fail to grasp the core of the problem. As stated by Halevi:

You ignore the other half: that a Palestinian state could turn into an existential threat to Israel. Most Israelis are convinced that, given the current state of the Palestinian national movement, an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would lead to missile attacks against the Israeli heartland, including greater Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion Airport. All it takes is a few "primitive rockets" to be launched every day against Israeli neighbor hoods — and for the international community to tie our hands when we try to defend our selves — for normal life in this country to become impossible.
It is the instinctive judgment of the Israeli electorate that creation of a Palestinian state now, would eventually result in the destruction of Israel. The reasons for the "gut" reaction are: 1. In each place Israel has withdrawn, the result has been militarisation, never stopped and still increasing a. Iran is training and arming Hizbullah and Hamas, with Katyushas and Scuds en route. b. The PA attempted to receive Karine-A arms and would likely obtain Katyushas and Scuds from Syria or Iran (despite the contiguity issues). 2. International intervention - the Lebanon and Gaza wars proved to the Israeli electorate that the international community will not allow it to defend itself against the militarisation in item 1. 3. The Iranian nuclear threat will function as an umbrella to further render Israel subject to assault by conventional arms. 4. Consequently, the Israeli electorate presumes that a Palestinian state would quickly militarise and launch Qassams, Katyushas, or Scuds into Israel's heartland. Continuously bombarded from the north, south, and east, the Israeli economy and society would disintegrate. - all the while being forbidden (by the presence of "peacekeeper" troops) from defending itself. 5. As of the mid-1980's, it appeared the Palestinians would settle for almost any autonomous state. That objectve mostly achieved, they have reverted to the salami strategy (strategy of slices). There is no reason to think their demands will cease once they attain a state in the West Bank. Supporting the above analysis is the fact that Kadimah was elected on a platform of separation (withdrawal behind the fence), only to put such plans on hold when Nasrallah bombarded the North; Nasrallah screwed the Palestinians out of a state, by foolishly reminding all of Israel - government and people - that "missiles dwarf a fence.

- TNR.Reader

April 17, 2010 at 7:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KingRoi as an Alazon: that's hitting the nail right on the head, Noga.

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

04/17/2010 - 1:44am EDT | bulbman1066 Roi, like all anti-Semites, is a shameless liar. Question for roi the swastika boy. What have the Jews ever done to you that you hate them so? What have the Islamofascists done for you that you continually bend over and kiss their behinds? God bless jdyer and noga1 for having the courage to stand up for honor, truth, decency and humanity.
Well, well. Another person goes even further than I in condemnation of the RoiDesAbrutis.

- TNR.Reader

April 17, 2010 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia and Noga: a bit off the Risen/Klein exchange, so well summarized by Lymon; but I have been wondering if Hamas resumption of executions by firing squad (not crucifixion-worthy?) will have any real impact on the European obsession with the 'suffering in Gaza', or create some wiggle room for the Obami to back off by wondering exactly WHO is representing the Palestinians? (perhaps a question that was posed by Klein before Risen went into 'are you there, James' mode.) Perhaps the Obami have now decided Goldman, Sachs ("Zionist proxy"???) is endangering U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. noga: alazon is a borderline compliment. roid's endless repeating loop is "I must have my share in the conversation" :)

- K2K

April 17, 2010 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"noga: alazon is a borderline compliment." it wasn't a compliment and it is an apt description of a boastful poster who says things like: "Actually, jackson, (I was )right at the top of the class at one of the best, most prestigious law schools in the country, an achievement so far beyond your abilities that you cannot even imagine it." As the saying goes, Hic Rhodus, hic salta!”

- jdyer

April 17, 2010 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"roid's endless repeating loop" Ohmy, K2K. You're always polite. Do you realise you just called Roi loopy?

- TNR.Reader

April 17, 2010 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"at the top of the class at one of the best, most prestigious law schools in the country" Woe shall betide American jurisprudence.

- TNR.Reader

April 17, 2010 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson: I thought alazon was too kind to describe what you more accurately described at 6:44 p.m. as "...the use of insults and bullying people into agreement. It’s not working; even someone as dim as you are today should be able to see that. " I add that I enjoy every comment you post. one does wonder how many rounds it will take to knock the roid down for the count. looking forward to reading the next chapter tomorrow. fwiw, THIS TNR post is featured today at realclearworld.com.

- K2K

April 17, 2010 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How sad for Israel that here at TNR its only "defenders" consist almost entirely of this traveling freak show, a crazed bunch of jackals who cannot stop whining about being insulted and complaining about lack of "civil debate" while they do nothing but direct juvenile, playground abuse and epithets at anyone who dares to disagree with their endless idiocies and self-congratulation. I have never in my life seen a more thoroughly lunatic, utterly delusional display than what can be read here. What a bunch of needy, childish losers -- and all in one place. Yeccchhh!

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2010 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia asks, plaintively, whether anyone here wants to debate the issues or discuss the article and the sick, demented acolytes of Martin Peretz respond with 13 posts directed at me, each more childish than the one before. My favorite is the peanut intellect K2K asking how many it will take for me to "go down for the count." You don't have the stones, and certainly not the brains, K2K. And the addled posts of jackson? Apart from the epithets, they might be insulting if it were possible to sort them out, but who has the time or the inclination. And TNR.reader? He just grunts. This is like being attacked by a swarm of irate two-year olds with dirty diapers. There is an awful stench, to be sure, but it is not exactly threatening. More comic, in a very sad way. Goodnight children.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 12:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I must have my share in the conversation" :) @ 1.51: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYpdeWHkZUQ&feature=related ...you ought to know, that I am not to be trifled with. ....Do you know who I am? ..Are you lost to every feeling of propriety and delicacy? .. You will be censured, slighted, and despised... Obstinate, headstrong girl! I am ashamed of you!... I will not be interrupted. Hear me in silence! I am most seriously displeased!!... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSksfO8DE_o&feature=related (Always a pleasure to revisit this great dramatization.)

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If Americans Knew": http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2446.htm

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good morning children. With a new day, we are now instructed as to the true cause of the argument between Israel and the US -- Egyptian anti-Semitism. Or perhaps what we learn is that there would be no argument between Israel and the US if Americans only knew of Egyptian anti-Semitism and how extreme it is. Or maybe that Israel's settlement of occupied territory is not a violation of the human rights of its inhabitants because there also exists Egyptian anti-Semitism. Or maybe it is simply more congenial for those who find they have nothing with which to justify the settlement of the West Bank in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention to discuss something else, their own grievances.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

King bouloi "How sad for Israel that here at TNR its only "defenders" consist almost entirely of this traveling freak show, a crazed bunch of jackals who cannot stop whining about being insulted and complaining about lack of "civil debate" while they do nothing but direct juvenile, playground abuse and epithets at anyone who dares to disagree with their endless idiocies and self-congratulation." Who is the real freak here, the lonely old KING BULLOI who can't stand the people who post here yet can't stop obsessively posting insults. He goes to sleep with and insulting post and gets up in the morning without stopping to fart and gets on his lap top to post more insults. I feel sorry for his wife, the poor woman, and for his kids if he has any. Yet, I doubt he is married, what sane woman would put up with him for more than five minutes? No wonder he spends his time sucking up to the Obamites. That is the only human contact he has. Must suck to be KING BULLOI!

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The NYT offers a correction: "A picture caption on Thursday with the continuation of a news analysis article about a shift in the Obama administration’s Middle East policy referred incorrectly to Ramat Shlomo, the name of a Jewish housing development that Israel says it is expanding despite objections by the United States and the Palestinian Authority. It is a neighborhood in East Jerusalem, not a settlement in the West Bank." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/world/middleeast/15mideast.html

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson: roi offers enough material to work with. No need to mention familes. Please don't go that way.

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KING BULLOI: "Or maybe it is simply more congenial for those who find they have nothing with which to justify the settlement of the West Bank in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention to discuss something else, their own grievances." I don't remember justifying most settlements on the West Bankn, but then this old fart has to make up his own facts in order to win an argument. I did and do contend that the Geneva Convention do not apply to the settlement issue on the West Bank. KING BULL aside from hurling insults has never proven that it does apply nor has anyone else.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "Jackson: roi offers enough material to work with. No need to mention familes. Please don't go that way." OK!

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh oh. Jackson's lunatic incontinence is becoming an embarrassment even to the jackals. One of the things that amuses me is that many of those who do post here, particularly the jackal pack, seem to imagine that no one else is reading, even though, periodically, one of them will poke his or her head up momentarily before being repelled by the ordure. Thus, focused almost to the exclusion of all else on their unavailing efforts to intimidate me because I both criticize Israel and am able to do so on the basis of reasoned arguments that they cannot address, they seem never to give any thought to how other readers will see them. Then it occurs to someone.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva.html "The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War was adopted in 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. The international treaty governs the treatment of civilians during wartime, including hostages, diplomats, spies, bystanders and civilians in territory under military occupation. The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control. In the fifty years since its adoption, the Fourth Geneva Convention has never been used to condemn world atrocities including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Tibet, etc. Since 1997 the Arab group at the United Nations has been trying to invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention against Israel, in regard to its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and in particular at Har Homa in Jerusalem. The UN General Assembly has adopted a number of non-binding resolutions condemning Israeli settlements, and calling for a convening of the signatory nations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In February 1999, the GA adopted a resolution calling for a special UN session to be held on July 15, 1999, in Geneva to examine "persistent violations" by Israel. Israel rejects the interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention applying it to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948. Switzerland is the Depository for the Fourth Geneva Convention. This means that the Swiss are technically responsible for organizing and convening a meeting of the signatory nations. However, the Swiss may only convene the meeting if a majority of the signatory nations agree to do so. ADL [and other organizations] have vigorously opposed convening the Fourth Geneva Convention in regard to Israeli settlements arguing that it could dangerously politicize the international legitimacy and high standings of the Geneva Conventions. It could open a Pandora’s box across the globe haphazardly applying the convention to a plethora of nations. Furthermore, it would give credence to the Palestinian tactic of using the international community to air grievances regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and thereby threatens the peace process itself. International efforts led by the United States were successful in scaling down the July 15th special UN meeting in Geneva. The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes. However, a resolution was unanimously passed stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the 'occupied territories.'" Source: Copyright Anti-Defamation League (ADL). All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. * * * "The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control." The West Bank, other than the annexed east Jerusalem and environs, is under military control. * * * Jackson, phone Abe Foxman at once and call him an anti-Semite! You are so compelling and charismatic when you do this that I am sure he will understand that you are actually advancing a careful argument about international law merely couched in very economic terms.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... to make up his own facts in order to win an argument. " He has to. How else can he generate these confrontations that seem to provide him with the necessary adrenalin levels to be able to tolerate his sad self? Can we just ignore him, at least for a while?

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Note to K2K, who fancies himself an amateur lawyer, or at least that, despite his complete ignorance, he is able to tell good lawyers from bad and sound legal arguments from unsound: At least if one is to believe the ADL, Israel does not claim that the settlement of its population in the West Bank is not a "transfer." Rather, exactly as I told you, it claims that, as a matter of jurisdiction, the 4th Geneva Convention does not apply. "Israel rejects the interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention applying it to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948." Of course, the fact that Israel came into possession of the West Bank legally does not mean that it is not occupied. The 4th Geneva Convention does not take into account as a predicate whether an occupation is legal or illegal -- a matter addressed by a different body of international law. It addresses the human rights of the inhabitants of territory that is in fact occupied, or, as ADL succinctly puts it, "under military control." If you would like actually to learn something about law, K2K, I will be happy to recommend some texts for you.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KING bouloi "Uh oh. Jackson's lunatic incontinence is becoming an embarrassment even to the jackals." TYPICAL KING BULLOI: HE IS UNDER THE sway of the REPETITION COMPULSION!

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please, please, jackson, can't you just ignore roi? Because every time you open your mouth, you embarrass yourself and everyone who agrees with you.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To whomsoever may be reading here: Please observe me "making up my own facts" by quoting extensively from a publication of the Anti-Defamation League as reported by the Jewishvirtuallibrary. As you can see, I must make up my own facts in this way because there is otherwise nothing for me to say. I would have to rely on epithets and such like all of those above who seem never to recite a fact of any kind, invented or not.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can you hear me laughing, jackson and fellow travelers? I'll bet you can.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“UN Geneva Conference Adjourned (July 16, 1999)” “A United Nations conference held in Geneva to determine whether Israeli settlements in the occupied territories violate international law adjourned after less than an hour. The July 15, 1999, conference was called after the UN General Assembly voted 115-2 in February to convene regarding the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits population transfers in occupied territories, to settlements in Israel. Both Israel and the United States boycotted the session, calling it harmful to the peace process. The 103 countries attending the Swiss-chaired conference unanimously published a statement saying that the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war is applicable to "the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem." But, due to the "improved atmosphere in the Middle East," the conference was adjourned quickly on condition that it will reconvene if necessary. The statement never mentioned Israel by name. Israeli officials were happy with the way the meeting turned out, saying it turned into a "non-event on a non-issue," as Foreign Ministry official Yitzhak Lior called it. The The Palestinian Authority (PA), which claims that settlements violate the Geneva Convention, was also generally satisfied. Planning Minister Nabil Shaath commented that it sent a message to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak that, "settlements and peace do not coincide," while at the same time giving the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt that he will revive the peace process. Some PA leaders did not support the conference, which was planned while Benjamin Netanyahu was Israeli Prime Minister, saying it would be best to wait and see what Barak’s intentions are. Others thought the meeting should have taken a stronger approach and discussed enforcement of the Geneva Convention.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/geneva99.html

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KING UBU BULLOI is and obsessive compulsive who can't stop posting! He is good for a couple of laughs each day, though! Get a life, buster.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court "Currently the Rome Statute of the ICC has 139 Signatories and 108 Ratifications. Some signatories, notably Israel and the United States, later stated that they did not intend to become parties to the treaty. The world's two largest countries, China and India, did not sign.[44]"

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's impossible to disentangle national and international politics from merely legal ones when dealing with issues pertaining to the 4th Geneva convention and the ICC.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh very good, jackson! You are trying for once to recite something factual. Unfortunately, you seem oblivious to the import of what you quote. The only matter decided at the conference convened regarding the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the transfer of Israeli population to occupied territory in the West Bank is that the convention does in fact apply. Then, in order not to frustrate the peace process, the Arab advocates concurred in adjourning the conference. If suddenly you regard the determinations of the competent international legal bodies as definitive, then the matter is decided. Contrary to the Israeli jurisdictional argument, the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply and, as explained so well by the ADL, prohibits "the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control." You can phone Abe Foxman tomorrow and call him names.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From wikianswers: Did the US ratify the Geneva Conventions? Yes and no. There are actually four main "Geneva Conventions", a Geneva Protocol, related Hague Conventions and at least eleven changes and modifications. The 4th Geneva Convention is the one we think of most and the United States signed that one in 1949 and ratified it in 1955, except that we took exception to certain parts, for example, we reserved the right to use capital punishment in certain cases.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KING BULLOI is still repeating himself. When you can show you knowhow to think for yourself, call me. Otherwise you can keep up on typing till your fingers fall off. Nothing you say will matter much, here.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You can phone Abe Foxman tomorrow and call him names." KING UBU BULLOI must think this is a particular clever line, since he keeps repeating it over and over again. But then if you are as witless as BULLOI and in love with your own typing anything you put out will seem clever to you.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Call you, jackson? Do you imagine that I am actually addressing myself TO you rather than talking about you in order to call to the attention to other readers that despite all of your bombast you are completely incoherent? Your sheer goofiness never ceases to amaze. What a silly boy you are!

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seems like we could keep this all day, huh jackson? You insisting that I post obsessively in response to your obsessive posting. I don't know when I have had so much fun at so little expense (but then, I type quickly albeit with a lot of mistakes).

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Did the US ratify the Geneva Conventions? Yes and no” This is typical BULLOIS double talk. Yes and no. “There are actually four main "Geneva Conventions", a Geneva Protocol, related Hague Conventions and at least eleven changes and modifications. The 4th Geneva Convention is the one we think of most and the United States signed that one in 1949 and ratified it in 1955, except that we took exception to certain parts, for example, we reserved the right to use capital punishment in certain cases.” So some countries get to decide which part of the law they will observe while others (smaller cones) better comply with the every letter and comma in that law. So much for the validity of international law.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He is still at it, old compulsive KING BULLOI!

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe this was helpful: "What is the solution? Pressure will not produce a solution. Is there a solution? There must be, there will be. Why tackle the most complex and sensitive problem prematurely? Why not first take steps which will allow the Israeli and Palestinian communities to find ways to live together in an atmosphere of security. Why not leave the most difficult, the most sensitive issue, for such a time? Jerusalem must remain the world’s Jewish spiritual capital, not a symbol of anguish and bitterness, but a symbol of trust and hope. As the Hasidic master Rebbe Nahman of Bratslav said, “Everything in this world has a heart; the heart itself has its own heart.” Jerusalem is the heart of our heart, the soul of our soul. " http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org/inthenews.aspx

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Validity" is not a relevant category for international law. The fact is that it influences international behavior. Consensus views on questions of international law are therefore relevant to international behavior. That international law is inconsistently, and indeed very little, enforced as a formal matter has nothing to do with the question whether Israel is in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. The Convention is not only a body of positive international law, it is an expression of moral consensus. It would be one thing to argue that the view of human rights that abjures settlement by an occupying power in occupied territory is wrong and can justly be ignored for that reason. That is quite different than claiming that the particular conduct of Israel does not violate the stated prohibition. No one seems to attempt the former argument, which would at least be intellectually coherent. Rather, they make very lame arguments of the latter type. Apparently, even most of Israel does not dare argue openly that it can simply ignore the 4th Geneva Convention. Either way, the fact that it is the almost universally held view that Israel is in violation, and that no one is able to offer an even modestly persuasive legal argument to the contrary, is going to have an effect on international affairs. It already does. Sooner or later, it lead to international action to force Israel out of the West Bank. I think that will happen sooner as the result of a declaration of Palestinian statehood. Then you can claim that reality is simply "invalid."

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you think there is any upper bound on the number of times I can get you to pee on yourself, jackson?

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Moshe Ya’alon, a former Israel Defense Forces general who now serves as Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic affairs minister, posed the following query in an interview published in the Jerusalem Post: “If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews? Why do those areas have to be Judenrein? Don’t Arabs live here, in the Negev and the Galilee? Why isn’t that part of our public discussion? Why doesn’t that scream to the heavens?” Ya’alon believes that previous withdrawals, such as the evacuation from Gaza, only encouraged Hamas and Hezbollah to raise the ante in terms of violence." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/tobin/279091 Why can't Israel-Palestine peace look like this: http://imagineannie.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/yin-yang1.jpg

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The misfortune for Israel and the Jews of the world is that Israel foolishly hitched its claims to Jerusalem to its settlement policies in the West Bank. The latter were destined to fail. As their failure comes more clearly and certainly into view, Israel would like now to unhitch its policy with regard to Jerusalem from its settlement policies in the West Bank and have the distinction respected by the world. There is a good chance that this is too little, too late. It is a sad commentary on the dangers of strategic and moral over-reach. But there were certainly voices raised in warning even decades ago. They were ignored.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It strikes, me Noga in reading the Wiesel quote, that whether purposeful or not Obama’s bringing up East Jerusalem as an issue may actually be beneficial since it has rallied the world Jewish community to support keeping Jerusalem undivided and the capital of Israel. At the same time an Israeli government may have an easier time evacuating the settlement on the West Bank arguing that the integrity of Jerusalem is at stake. This too my mind this will be beneficial since it’s in Israel’s interest to disencumber itself of the settlements, not because of so called international law but because maintaining them is not in Israel’s long term interest.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "Moshe Ya’alon, a former Israel Defense Forces general who now serves as Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic affairs minister, posed the following query in an interview published in the Jerusalem Post: “If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews? Why do those areas have to be Judenrein? Don’t Arabs live here, in the Negev and the Galilee?..." Ya'alon is right in principle but his solution isn't practical. Would the settlers be willing to live under Palestinian law just as the Arabs in Israel live under Israeli law? If so then they should stay provided the PA agrees to that. However, I don't think the settlers will be willing to put themselves under the authority of a Palestinian government especially one that includes Hamas.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see that the compulsive KING UBU BOULOI is still repeating himself.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Proposal of Palestinian citizenship for remaining settlers A number of proposals for the granting of Palestinian citizenship or residential permits to Jewish settlers in return for the removal of Israeli military installations from the West Bank have been fielded by such individuals[132] as Arafat[133], Ibrahim Sarsur[134] and Ahmed Qureia[135]. According to Rabbi Yehoshua Magnes, the possibility that any such exchange of sovereignty over the Jewish settler population can occur without subsequent Arab reprisal violence is low[136]. [136] Israel's Religious Right - Not a Monolith: "Second, a policy of retaining Jewish settlements under Palestinian control is likely to provoke more opposition than dissolving them; settlement is perceived as a half of the inseparable whole understood as the "Jewish presence in the land." Maintaining communities without Israeli sovereign control over them is the same as losing the land.36 Thus, transferring settlements to Palestinian control while allowing Jewish settlers to remain in them would also be perceived as jeopardizing Jewish lives and would be prohibited under the requirement to preserve human life. Therefore, it is better to dissolve the settlements than to maintain them under PA control" Israeli Minister Moshe Ya'alon said in April 2010 that "just as Arabs live in Israel, so, too, should Jews be able to live in Palestine." ... "If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews?" [137].

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It strikes, me Noga in reading the Wiesel quote, that whether purposeful or not Obama’s bringing up East Jerusalem as an issue may actually be beneficial since it has rallied the world Jewish community to support keeping Jerusalem undivided and the capital of Israel. " A draconian application of international law can never address the full panoply of issues that beset the I/P conflict. A draconian application of international law (which roi advises) would be like the law allowing Shylock to take his pound of flesh, as was stipulated in his bond and certified by a Venetian notary.

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Ya'alon is right in principle but his solution isn't practical." It's the principle that counts. The acceptance of a principle.

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thanks noga, for pointing out the NYT retracted that photo caption regarding Ramat Shlomo, though I wish they would acknowledge that Ramat Shlomo is in North Jerusalem, as Bret Stephens keeps trying to insert into the media echo. As to "Obama’s bringing up East Jerusalem as an issue", it looks like 1) he knows it was a mistake, but 2) part of a plan, whether naive or not we shall eventually see, to de-link Israel from nuclear Iran. (hello Jackson) I think the Obami are currently more focussed on Af-Pak (and India) and Erdogan's neo-Ottoman entry onto the chessboard of Arabs versus Persians. Insider Austen: the roid is most like Lady Catherine than any male character I remember!

- K2K

April 18, 2010 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "Insider Austen: the roid is most like Lady Catherine than any male character I remember!" So among many other things, you're also a homophobe? Keep it klassy.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 18, 2010 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keep it real Molly. Let's see what else Israel (the Jews are guilty of) Via Zword: "Dues Against the Jews" by Eamonn McDonagh "Ireland and boycotts." "The Celtic Tiger is dead and buried and Ireland is going through an economic crisis unprecedented in seriousness in the history of the state. The banks are all bankrupt, unemployment and the budget deficit are soaring and emigration is starting to rise again. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions held a special one-day conference to address these issues today. No, it didn’t actually. It did hold a special one-day conference to support a boycott of Israel. You can read all about it here, in the Irish Times, and here on Hezbollah’s news site. You should also read what Ian O’Doherty has written about this matter. As he says, its [union] dues against the Jews." http://blog.z-word.com/2010/04/dues-against-the-jews/#more-1565 Then there is this: "Jonathan Kay: Who’s to blame for a Canadian woman trapped in Saudi Arabia? Israel, of course!" http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/08/jonathan-kay-who-s-to-blame-for-a-canadian-woman-trapped-in-saudi-arabia-israel-of-course.aspx

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So among many other things, you're also a homophobe? Keep it klassy." ??? ??? ???

- noga1

April 18, 2010 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If it is the acceptance of principle that counts, one wonders why this excludes acceptance of the principles embodied in the 4th Geneva Convention. * * * Jackson says: “Did the US ratify the Geneva Conventions? Yes and no” This is typical BULLOIS double talk. * * * That was a quote from wikianswers, not me talking. The subsequent paragraph, also quoted, made clear that, by yes and no, wiki means that the 4th Geneva Convention was signed by the US in 1949, ratified in 1955, but with specific reservations. The facts are the facts.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More repetitive posts by King Bullois.

- jdyer

April 18, 2010 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ah Jackson, google "Protocols Elders Zion"and see how global is 'blame the Jews', wherein the "global Zionist conspiracy" is the puppetmaster of the British and Americans, which really gives the Brits a free pass for their bad mapmaking (Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan (multiple bad borders), Palestine, Ireland...) Walt/Mearsheimer borrowed same puppetmaster with their "AIPAC/neo-con/Zionist conspiracy". Did anyone listen to Bret Stephens and Rhashid Khalili with Fareed Zakaria today? Maybe Riesen and Klein needed a moderator. We can go to cnn.com and vote on whether I/P conflict endangers the lives of American soldiers. not into Insider Austen? from the football film, "The Replacements" because Clifford Franklin to Eddie Martell keeps coming to mind (copied from wikiquote, expletives masked): " Eddie Martell: We have a game to win. Nobody can beat Dallas with these losers! Shane Falco: [enters locker room] I can. Martell: Hi Shane, how are ya, now get the H*** OUT OF MY LOCKER ROOM! Falco: Coach? Jimmy McGinty: What the h*** took you so long? Falco: Traffic. [players cheer him on] Jimmy McGinty: Suit up! Martell: What?! [To McGinty] O'Niel will fire your a**! Jimmy McGinty: It won't be the first time! Martell: This is bullshit. I'm going to put an end to it right now. [heads for the locker room exit]Martell: This is bull****. I'm going to put an end to it right now. [heads for the locker room exit] Nigel 'The Leg' Gruff: Come and get some then! [Pulling his shirt off, spitting into his right hand, and faces Martell] You big fairy! Martell: [chuckles at Nigel in front of him but the grin disappears as the whole team moves to surround him.] This doesn't change anything, Falco. I'm an All-Pro quarterback. I've got TWO Super Bowl rings! You'll never be more than a replacement player. Falco: Yeah...yeah, I can live with that. Clifford Franklin: [refers to Martell] My brothers, will somebody please, PLEASE get this a****** out of here? Falco [in the huddle as QB after Martell is gone]: I wish I could say something classy and inspirational, but that just wouldn't be our style. Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever."

- K2K

April 18, 2010 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent post, jackson! You have FINALLY managed a simple but coherent thought. If you continue to limit yourself to no more than six words at a time, you should be able to keep it together and not lapse again into incoherent ranting. You too K2K. As long as you don't actually try to advance a thought of your own, you are, finally, on safe ground. It is a wise man who understands his limitations and stays within them.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Inquisitive minds are welcome to two coherent legal analyses on the question best framed by Nicholas Rostow: "Are the Settlements Illegal?" " ... to know the history both of the settlements themselves and of the U.S. government’s deliberations as to their legality. ..." http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=782 Law professor David M. Phillips on "The Illegal-Settlements Myth" "The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex nature of the specific legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty has been rendered against settlement policy. ..." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-illegal-settlements-myth-15295

- K2K

April 18, 2010 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With apologies for my ignorance - how long has "international law" as the term is used today been in practice? How effective is it? Would "international law" condemn the Arab boycott of Israel and the non-recognition of Israel? Finally - isn't it unrealistic to suggest that "population transfers" will all of a sudden just stop? People move, have moved all the time, lawfully or otherwise. Sometimes enormous numbers of people are deliberately moved, for example Pakistan and Greece/Turkey. Sometimes people flee war zones. Sometimes there are large migrations which we now see in terms of immigration. My point being simply that there's nothing unprecedented, unnatural or unusual about "settlements" per se, in fact people used the think "settlement" was natural and good. In Israel's case "settlement" has become an ugly word. And - isn't Israel bearing the brunt of the all the backlash against former Western imperialism? What about Eastern imperialism? This is never mentioned, for example I see comments amounting to "Jews are like a bone in the Arabs' throat," or sneering references to "the Judaization" of Jerusalem - nobody mentions the "Arabization" of North Africa... And in Israel's case, there had been a prior displacement of people from the West Bank and Jerusalem (by Jordan) which undertook a complete and deliberate ethnic cleansing of all the Jews there. Subsequently of course virtually all the Jews in the Arab world came under threat and fled, most to Israel though many to the Americas. Plus there is the problem of "defensible borders." I'm uncomfortable too with the idea of that a neighbor of Israel's - any neighbor - wouldn't have any Jews living there (safely). By the same token I agree with Roi that regardless of where the borders are or who lives where, the people of the West Bank have to be citizens of someplace - they cannot live indefinitely in limbo especially not as second-classniks. This is to me the really pressing issue. But in general isn't Israel in something of a unique and uniquely dangerous situation? Aren't there international laws against repeated attempts and threats to annihilate an entire people? On a not-so-tangential issue - there's an interesting piece about Turkey here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/16/turkey_takes_sides

- Sophia

April 18, 2010 at 8:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: it all depends on what you mean by "international law". For example, since the time of Sumer, "treaties" have been entered into, and honoured, by what at the time passed for a state. This is the most rudimentary and also the most concrete form of international law - a law that binds two or more states. Customary international law, in its most basic sense, is more or less of the same vintage - such things as immunity for ambassadors date back to Babylonian and Persian times. Modern conceptions of international law date from the Seventeenth Century, with a double whammy of Hugo Grotius (the first modern exposition of international law) and the Treaty of Westphalia (the first modern establishment of the nation state). As for the effectiveness of international law, each time you send a letter, board an aircraft, purchase or use an imported good (pretty much anything not grown in your backyard), use a bank machine, travel across international borders, make a long-distance call or sit back and enjoy a cup of tea in relative peace, you can thank international law for that. There are, of course, instances where international law does not function or does not function well. There are instances where domestic law does not function well. But as one well know international lawyer once said, most states observe most of their obligations under international law most of the time. You mentioned the "boycott" of Israel and the non-recognition of Israel. The short answer is, kind of and no. Trade and recognition are among the purest forms of the exercise of sovereignty; this means that in either respect, only treaty-based obligations bind states in international law. On trade matters, the matter is complicated by a series of tacit understandings related to the conduct of commercial relations within the context of security interests. So, for example, the US embargo on Cuba is clearly in violation of the US' trade law obligations, but Cuba has never brought a dispute against the US because it would be clear that no matter what, the US is not going to lift its embargo for purely legal reasons under international trade law. A number of Arab states are also members of the WTO, and a similar tacit understanding exists between them and Israel. And of course, Israel returns the favour. There are no rules that I am aware of requiring a state to recognise another state. Your point about population movements does not really address the basic point at issue. Populations move all the time - but that does not mean, for example, that the US does not have the right to block the movement of Mexican citizens into its territory, or that Serbia has the right to expel the Kosovars from their home, or that Israel has the right to settle its citizens in territories that Israel itself recognises as occupied territories under international law. "Aren't there international laws against repeated attempts and threats to annihilate an entire people?" Yes. The Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide define the international crime of genocide, or attempted genocide. Although, to be fair, there is a distinction between real and unreal threats, and between credible and incredible attempts. Hamas' bombardment of Israeli schools is arguably a war crime; but Israel is not in danger of annihilation by Hamas. When Iran, or any other country, comes within even a possibility of a real threat (it is not now anywhere close, but perhaps in two to five years it might get close), then effective - very effective - mechanisms exist in international law to defend against those threats.

- icarusr

April 18, 2010 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia, "International law," despite the name, is not the same as domestic law. It is the "customary law amongst nations." It has a similar role in international relations to very settled custom and usage in the affairs of communities. I say "very settled" because only those customs of international affairs that are supported by broad consensus come to be thought of as "law." Nations do structure their affairs with regard to international law and they do make demands upon one another base on international law. Starting at some point in the 19th century, custom and uasge began to be supplemented by forms of "positive law," that is, law that is established by actual agreement rather than just on the basis of established practice. This process accelerated in the 20th century in response to the two world wars and the establishment for the first time of two international legal and political organizations, the League of Nations and the United Nations. The force of international law is such that the second Bush administration took great pains to argue that its invasion of Iraq was in compliance with international law, although I personally don't consider its arguments to have any merit at all. Among the aspects of positive international law are the Geneva Conventions, including the 4th Geneva convention to which something like 189 nations are High Contracting Parties, including the United States, Israel, and Jordan. There is no question that I am aware of, indeed even ndmakenzie, who is widely reviled here, agrees, that a military occupation can continue until the security conditions are such that the occupying power can withdraw in safety, to its forces and to its own territory. And the conventions are clear that the occupying power can take measures necessary for security, including many things that would otherwise be prohibited. There are strict rules about the things that can and cannot be done to the occupied people, even in the name of security. But, for that reason, the right of Israel, legally the occupying power, to take any necessary measures for its own security otherwise consistent with the law of war is not in question. The problem is rather that advocates of Israel, either by design or through sloppiness, often conflate Israel's powers and rights in aid of its own security, that are not seriously in question although particular actions such as the security barrier are disputed, with the right to settle its own population in the territory. There is no right of settlement that comes with a right to establish security. Just the reverse. Settlement is explicitly prohibited even while security measures are explicitly permitted. The Fourth Geneva Convention is addressed to the duties of an occupying power and the human rights of inhabitants of occupied territory. It does not address other issues such as the legal consequences of whether the occupying power came to be there through illegal aggressive war or legal defensive war. The convention applies because the territory is occupied. There are jurisdictional questions about whether the convention applied to the West Bank, but very little claim that if it did apply the Israeli settlements there would be legal anyway. If the Convention applies, even the ADL states that the settlements would be illegal. "The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control." The applicable provision is Article 49 which says: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." srael is the Occupying Power and acknowledges itself to be the Occupying Power because it governs the West Bank, other than the areas of and adjacent to Jerusalem that it has annexed, explicitly under military occupation government. The jurisdictional question has been addressed by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. It ruled that because the territory was Jordanian, and the population Jordanian nationals, at the outbreak of hostilities, the Convention applies. Had Israel restricted its presence in the West Bank to what is necessary for its security pending peaceful and final resolution of the conflict, there would be no serious legal question. With respect to the annexed areas, there is a strong argument that the territory is no longer occupied. There are claims back and forth about the legality of the annexation. But as that territory is annexed and not under military government -- it is governed under normal Israeli law and the inhabitants are substantially accorded equal rights -- it would, I believe, misconstrue the convention to say that the annexed areas are occupied territory. It follows that, if Israel were to incorporate the West Bank and extend its normal "municipal law" to that territory, it would also no longer be occupied. Israel cannot do this for two reasons. First, it would have to extend normal political rights to all the inhabitants of the West Bank. But if it did this, it would quickly cease to be a majority Jewish state. However, if it incorporated the West Bank and did not accord the inhabitants equal political rights -- maintaining two classes of persons, a dominant and a subordinate class -- it would likely be guilty of the crime against humanity called "apartheid." The second reason is that UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 require the boundaries to be settled by negotiation. If Israel were unilaterally to incorporate the West Bank, it would likely be considered to be in violation of those resolutions. (There are those that argue that the annexation of Jerusalem is illegal for the same reason.) Thus, Israel is stuck. Even assuming it claims the territories as of right -- due to history and its coming into possession through legal, defensive war -- and that such a claim would be respected around the world, it cannot incorporate them, so that they are no longer occupied, without giving the inhabitants political rights. Hence, Israel itself is careful to maintain their status as occupied. But if the territory is occupied, the 4th Geneva Convention prohibits settlement of Israel's own population there. The only arguments that would allow Israel to have it both ways are that the Convention does not apply. That jurisdictional argument has been rejected by every competent international legal body, including the court and the UN.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israel did incorporate the territory that it came to occupy in its war of independence and extended its normal law and civil and political rights to all inhabitants there. This was so even though the question of final boundaries was explicitly reserved in the 1949 armistice. Technically, the Green Line is the 1949 armistice line, not a border. Within the area of the UN partition plan, Israel does not have settled, internationally recognized borders. Never-the-less, because Israel did incorporate the land it occupied in the war of independence, the armistice lines have come to be accepted by most of the world as a de facto border. Pretty much only the Arabs still argue that the land of Israel as it stood in 1949 is in any part "occupied territory."

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr, excellent post. One query: ...The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies... Am I correct to assume that this language is the legal source for your propositon that , or that "Israel has (no) right to settle its citizens in territories that Israel itself recognises as occupied territories under international law." If so: and not arguing, at least right now, so much as asking: 1. by what jurisprudence or legal reasoning does "settling" get assimilated to "deport or transfer"; and if "settlement" has some legal status as a term of art--and if so where does that come about--what constitutes "settlement" for these purposes. if Israelis voluntarily move to occupied territories albeit aided with government grants and other inducements, does that constitute settlement within the meaning of settlement coming within the ambit of "deport or transfer"?

- basman

April 18, 2010 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I applaud your effort, K2K. You can be forgiven if you didn't actually read either piece or didn't understand what you read. The Rostow piece reprises a good share of the history and most of the legal arguments, although with some mischaracterization. However, despite the fetching title, "Are the settlements illegal?", Rostow actually declines explicitly to engage that question once he has rehearsed the arguments. He says this: "Although not all the arguments advanced for and against legality are strong, legal arguments on both sides are durable on what are central points of contention. It therefore makes little practical sense to raise the profile of the issue of legality, for it would only add an insoluble element to what is already an extremely difficult problem. The best approach for the United States is to do what it can to advance the cause of peace between Israel and all its neighbors, and to assist the parties in the resolution of all the issues that divide them on the basis of rights for all, Israelis and Palestinians." That is one man's opinion, but it is most definitely not one man's legal opinion or analysis. It is his view that, for political reasons, the question of the legality of the settlements should not be addressed. * * * The Phillips piece is either incompetent or affirmatively dishonest. It starts out by saying this: "Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion—as some have done—this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself." This is a gross mischaracterization, and it leads to all of the flawed legal claims that follow. The analysis that the settlements violate international law rest of their status as being "occupied territory" and subject to the jurisdiction of the 4th Geneva Convention. It does not rest "entirely" or even principally on who is or may be the lawful sovereign there. Particularly egregious is Phillips effort to argue that settlement is permitted even if the territory is occupied because only forced transfers are prohibited. In support of this, Phillips says the following: "At the Geneva Conference itself, both the Final Report of the Committee charged with drafting the text of the 4th Convention for consideration by the delegates as well as comments by delegates generally differentiated between transfers that were voluntary and therefore permitted and those that were involuntary and therefore prohibited. As the Final Report to the delegates stated while explaining the differences between various articles dealing with the right of an occupying power to evacuate an area, primarily in the interest of the security of the civilian population’s security: “Although there was general unanimity in condemning such deportations as took place during the recent war, the phrase at the beginning of Article 45 caused some trouble. . . . In the end the Committee had decided on a wording that prohibits individual or mass forcible removals as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to any other country, but which permits voluntary transfers.” That is a key reason why Julius Stone termed the anti-settlement interpretation “an irony bordering on the absurd” and commented: “Ignoring the overall purpose of Article 49, which would inter alia protect the population of the State of Israel from being removed against their will into the occupied territory, it is now sought to be interpreted so as to impose on the Israel government a duty to prevent any Jewish individual from voluntarily taking up residence in that area.”" This is legal sleight of hand. The argument that Phillips recites about forcible or voluntary transfers was about Article 45 which, in its adopted form, says this: "Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party to the Convention." It then goes on with some detail and specific cases where transfer is or is not permitted. This provision, however, applies to transfer out of the occupied territory of its inhabitants. It is understandable in that context to be concerned not to prohibit people from voluntarily leaving occupied territory. Phillips, without even noting the distinction, proceeds to talk as though this concern about prohibiting voluntary transfer simply applies as well in the context of Article 49, that prohibits transfer by the occupying power of its own population into the occupied territory. Also, Phillips simply ignores the fact that the first clause of Article 49 says this: "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive." But the clause of the very same Article 49 regarding transfer of the Occupying Power of its own population into the Occupied Territory says this: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." In one clause the article says "forcible transfer" when applied to the people occupied. When applied to the population of the occupier, it simply says "deport or transfer," "deport" meaning involuntary and transfer voluntary. Given the care taken to use the term "forcible" when it intended involuntary, it is almost impossible to argue as Phillips does. But the misuse of the concern that applied to Article 45 as though it applied to Article 49 is inexcusable. * * * Of course, one must consider who published this article, Commentary. Had it been submitted to my law review, we, the student editors who had complete authority over the publication, would have refused to publish it with these sorts of mis-citations, no matter who the author.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr my apologies if the answer to my questions are contained in this thread but I have no stomach for wading through some 180 or so posts of, mostly, people slagging each other or the posts generally of such slaggers. But, hey, that's just me.

- basman

April 18, 2010 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes, thank you icarus. I was not thinking solely of Iran when Sophia asked "Aren't there international laws against repeated attempts and threats to annihilate an entire people?" Syria and Lebanon have been "at war" with Israel for 61 years, which is why Syria's renewed bellicosity, and apparent transfer of SCUD missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon are so serious. Hello basman. In the Phillips article from Commentary I noted at 7:49 pm, he tries to answer your combined question, first on the term 'occupied territories', and, also the Geneva Article 49 'transfer' language, which came from a sub-committee trying to resolve Denmark's 'hosting' of so many displaced Germans at the time fo the conference (much more in the full article): from David M. Phillips, "The Illegal Settlements Myth"on 'occupied territories': "...Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School and undersecretary of state for political affairs in 1967 during the Six-Day War, argued that the West Bank should be considered “unallocated territory,” once part of the Ottoman Empire. From this perspective, Israel, rather than simply “a belligerent occupant,” had the status of a “claimant to the territory.” To Rostow, “Jews have a right to settle in it under the Mandate,” a right he declared to be “unchallengeable as a matter of law.” In accord with these views, Israel has historically characterized the West Bank as “disputed territory” (although some senior government officials have more recently begun to use the term “occupied territory”). ... [Phillips on Geneva Article 49]: ...To Julius Stone, an international-law scholar, “the word ‘transfer’ [in 49(6)] in itself implies that the movement is not voluntary on the part of the persons concerned, but a magisterial act of the state concerned.” To understand the phraseology used in Article 49(1), “individual or mass forcible transfers,” as well as one plausible origin of Article 49(6), some background is necessary. According to Stone, discussions at the 1949 Geneva Diplomatic Conference “were dominated . . . by a common horror of the evils caused by the recent World War and a determination to lessen the sufferings of war victims.” The various nations’ delegates considered a draft of the convention produced at a conference of the Red Cross Societies held in Stockholm during August 1948. Final Article 49 was the renumbered and revised successor to Article 45 of the Stockholm Draft. At a legal subcommittee meeting at Stockholm seemingly attended by fewer than 10 active participants, a Danish Jew named Georg Cohn proposed the sentence, albeit with a wider scope, that became Article 49(6). Cohn’s initial sentence, in French, would have prohibited an occupying power from deporting or transferring a “part of its own inhabitants or the inhabitants of another territory which it occupies” into the occupied territory. According to Cohn’s own report to the Danish foreign ministry, his language was directed at an event the aspects of which were little known outside Scandinavia. In the waning days of World War II, as the Russian military advanced westward through the Baltic states and the Germans retreated, the Germans rightly feared that the Russians would take retribution on all German citizens and ethnic Germans who had collaborated with the Nazis. The Germans evacuated more than 2 million people into boats, hoping to land them in northern Germany. Many of the ports had been bombed, however, and the Germans began unloading the people wherever they could, including several hundred thousand people into Copenhagen. In the spring of 1945, German children comprised a majority of the pupils in Copenhagen’s schools. The Danes despised them and placed them in concentration camps after the war, waiting to deport them to Germany as fast as possible. That goal had still not been accomplished in August 1948, at the time of the Stockholm conference." my apologies for not figuring out the format tools at tnr.com

- K2K

April 18, 2010 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Legal argument is taxing, isn't it? Not for the faint of heart or those without the some considerable intellect and the willingness to apply it.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ROID: "You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be worked on by such persuasions as these." I follow Walter Russell Mead's comment policy at The Amercan Interest: "...Nor will we allow this space to be used for personal attacks, or other disrespectful and discourteous behavior, especially (but not limited to) anything that is hateful or meant to harass or intimidate. We strongly encourage those who choose to comment to refrain from monopolizing the discussion or crowding out debate. There are plenty of places to be rude on the internet; this is not one of them. If your comment can’t find a place here, I’m sure it can somewhere else. ..."

- K2K

April 18, 2010 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your character is clearly evidenced, K2K, by your engaging in the very behavior that you purport to deplore. Given what you actually do, your pieties can and should be dismissed as merely a propaganda tactic. I have no expectation of changing your character or persuading you of anything. To the contrary, I am sure that is quite impossible. I merely want to be sure that you are the target of at least as much rude behavior or worse as you yourself engage in. If you don't like it and you desist, you may find you are no longer subject to it. If you insist on engaging in this very conduct, then you will be subject to it. You have my personal guarantee of that. Very simple.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey K2k, I haven't read yet your post to me through, and thanks for it, but I started to and just wanted to say right fro the get go that I am aware of the some of the legal complexities attending the very notion of the "occupied territories" but for the purposes of my questions to Icarusr I'm simply stipulating that the "occupied territories" are the occupied of territories.

- basman

April 18, 2010 at 11:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

one more point roid: Your prose lacks clarity, a requirement for effective written communication.

- K2K

April 18, 2010 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And further K2K this may be of interest to you as well. http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=22328#more-22328 Israpundit comes to my email address because its maker, Ted Belman, is a cousin of my cousin and actually a former articling student of my brother, who I have occasional corresponded with in the past. I tend not to agree with him too much but given the issues being mooted here I though this link might interest you.

- basman

April 18, 2010 at 11:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay K2K I read your post and the bits from Phillips you cited. I'm interested to see Icarusr's answer if he's interested in responding.

- basman

April 18, 2010 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the serious legal scholars, there is something here that I (and needless to say Phillips) passed by too quickly. The full text of Article 49 is as follows: Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. * * * Based on what follows clause 1, there can be no doubt that clause 1 was prohibiting both "deportations," by definition involuntary transfers out of the Occupied Territory, and "individual or mass forcible transfers" within the Occupied Territory. This is the ineluctable reading based on the fact that a limited exception to the prohibition of transfer within the territory follows immediately in clause 2, introduced by the word, "Nevertheless." In these provisions, we see clearly the specific concern of the drafters not to prohibit voluntary movement with the Occupied Territory, only involuntary movement. If the provision were not being applied within the Occupied Territory, then "deportation" would have been sufficient because it is be definition an involuntary transfer out. When we come to the provision regarding movement of the Occupier's civilian population (no implied limit here on military movements), the concerns are obviously different. There would clearly be no relevance to transfer by the Occupier of its own population within its own territory. Such persons are not even protected under the Convention. It is the inhabitants of the Occupied Territory who are being protected. Had the only concern been involuntary transfer from the Occupier to the Occupied Territory, the word "deport" would have been sufficient. The use of the additional term "transfer" is completely redundant if it refers only to involuntary transfer, that is, if it is read, as Phillips would like, as if it said "forcible transfer." That the word forcible is omitted makes the purpose clear. Given that the people being protected are the inhabitants of the Occupied Territory, not the civilian population of the Occupier, it would be of no significance to the inhabitants of the Occupied Territory or their human rights whether the transfer into their territory were voluntary or involuntary -- as indeed it does not in fact. The harm to the occupied is the same either way. The construction that Phillips wishes to place on this provision is almost impossible to sustain except by an argument that the drafters were simply incompetent. Given that the reason for the distinction between involuntary transfer in clause 1 and voluntary transfer in clause 6 is plain, there is no reason to think the drafters were merely asleep.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, K2K. I will try to work on my style on your behalf.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 11:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The official commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention states the following about Article 49: -- This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race. (my emphasis) -- The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power. -- It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument This sentence surely falls in the no-shit Sherlock category: Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race. It is absolutely clear from the commentary that the intent of Article 49 is to prevent situations like the Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

- ndmackenzie

April 18, 2010 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, the story of how I found Israpundit is for another place :) Ted and I had our dialog in 2008, and he is a principled gentleman. I still visit because he posts material not found elsewhere, like FM Lieberman's recent interview on Moscow radio. I use an avatar when I comment there. btw, basman, in one of your poetry comments, you asked about me, and my answer is I am NOT in Western Canada. Bookmarked your blogspot. I am not a lawyer, so I view all of these efforts as part of the counter to the 'delegitimization of Israel' campaign. When I thought I could still make Aliyah, Ariel made the most sense for me, hence my interest in the 'settlements debate'.

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid: no need to bother. If you do not want to be ignored by OTHERS, stop being a bully. Your current putdowns on my intelligence, now THAT is funny. "I am not to be intimidated into anything so wholly unreasonable." good night to all...

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have no problem being ignored by you, K2K. By all means, ignore me. Nor do I have any concern that I am generally ignored by those readers whose attention I want. As for the jackal pack, you all get exactly what you deserve, and I have no interest in the attention of the rest of them any more than I do from you. If they could manage to express a thought, any thought, without a stream of abuse, it would be much more entertaining. The big problem is not that they are intimidating (as if -- and you with your fantasies that I am "going down for the count"), but that the static makes it hard for people to follow the thread and the repellent behavior prevents people who don't want to be subjected to it from commenting. That of course is the very purpose. To drown out with sheer noise any thought to which you all object. You have exactly nothing to teach anyone about good manners, K2K. When you display them, you may then be the example you imagine yourself to be.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 12:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: Roid and NDMac's comments respond to your question; and I agree with both. Phillips' article - he is a commercial law professor and has no recognised expertise in international law, by the way - misses the point by mixing up the occupation and the settlement questions. This is something that Roid has mentioned above at some length and I do not need to address further. But of course the two questions are different. As to the interpretation of Article 49 - apply the Vienna Convention principles of treaty interpretation and you will get to where Roid and NDMac get. As you well know, you can't get out of legal obligations by renaming what you are doing. What is at issue is the substance of what is taking place, and not the terminology. The fact is that there can be no "voluntary" movement of Israelis to the occupied territories without the cover of the Israeli army. Remove the protection of the occupation, and the settlements will be gone. This tells you that what is taking place is an effective "transfer" of populations - permitted and abetted by the Israeli government. And it is illegal, regardless of how just the initial and ongoing occupation is. Permanent occupation and settlement of populations without exending political rights to the indigenous population is colonisation; colonisation is manifestly illegal. Throwing out the indigenous population, for any reason - including security reasons - is a crime against humanity. Nato bombed Serbia for 99 days to prove precisely that point. Annexing the occupied territories without extending political rights to the indigenous populations creates an Apartheid regime - also a crime against humanity. Now, one might say - as Sophia appears to imply - there is no "international law" (I loved the scare quotes), or as another poster here suggested, the Arabs got 99.9% and the oil, so Israel should get its way with the rest (leaving aside for the moment that that would imply that the Arabs got something like 20 million sq km of land in the Middle East, or an area the size of Russia) ... but that is another discussion altogether. I think Israel has enough problems and does not need friends or advocates who actively prod it into internationally illegal or criminal behaviour.

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 1:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus: Professor Phillips' C.V. indicates his focus within commercial law is in foreign investment, and his research since the mid-90's gives him credibility to analyze Article 49(6). From his C.V.: " A Micro-history: The Multiple Identities of Georg Cohn and the Multiple Meanings of Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention" . Phillips knows how impossible it is to debunk myths, but he also knows that it is possible to re-frame elements of some myths in order to influence policy-makers. International law evolves, but the original partition of Palestine was far more flawed than the partition of India. The disproportionate focus on Israel and the Palestinians by multi-lateral global institutions is what makes Israel and her friends and advocates so frustrated. when icarus wrote: "Permanent occupation and settlement of populations without exending political rights to the indigenous population is colonisation; colonisation is manifestly illegal.", I wondered why that concept is not retroactive. The U.S. could then solve it's illegal immigration problem with Mexico, as long as the migrating Mexicans stay within the territory orignally stolen from Mexico. China would withdraw their Han population from Tibet. Russia from the Central Asian -stans, not to mention Kaliningrad. BTW, I thought NATO bombed Serbia to stop their genocide of Bosnian Muslims (?). And, no one is bombing Sudan to stop their actions in Darfur, which involve both forced migration of indigenous populations, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. Sometimes I wish for the return of Border Commissions to resolve disputes, but the realities of human nature turn these disputes into conflicts, which at best become frozen.

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 8:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Phillips knows how impossible it is to debunk myths, but he also knows that it is possible to re-frame elements of some myths in order to influence policy-makers." This is not a legal exercise, but a propaganda exercise. Phillips is actually quite explicit that his purpose is essentially political, to give "cover" for what is really the tactical political claim that questioning the legality of the settlements is deleterious to Israel. The last paragraph of his article says this: "The idea that the creation of new settlements or that the expansion of ones already in place is an act of bad faith on the part of various Israeli governments may seem without question to those who believe those settlements constitute an obstacle to the ever elusive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whether this argument is well-founded or not, the willingness of Israel’s critics to assert that these communities are not merely wrong-headed but a violation of international law escalates the debate over their existence from a dispute about policy into one in which the Jewish state itself can be labeled as an international outlaw. The ultimate end of the illicit effort to use international law to delegitimize the settlements is clear—it is the same argument used by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state entirely. Those who consider themselves friends of Israel but opponents of the settlement policy should carefully consider whether, in advancing these illegitimate and specious arguments, they will eventually be unable to resist the logic of the argument that says—falsely and without a shred of supporting evidence from international law itself—that Israel is illegitimate." * * * What Phillips and other like-minded people, many of whom post here, should perhaps consider is that this propaganda exercise, whatever its moral stature, is failing spectacularly. It is not the lack of sufficient argument on behalf of the legality of settlements, or the concurrence by friends of Israel that they are illegal, that is serving to de-legitimize Israel, it is the settlements themselves. Phillips talks as if Israel may become an outlaw nation. The reality is that it has already become an outlaw nation. All of the competent international bodies have repeatedly expressed their view that the settlements are illegal. One can claim until blue that these authorities are all biased, anti-Semitic, in the grip of the Arabs, whatever. It does not matter, because they have all repeatedly held the same way. Thus, Israel is in fact an outlaw, even if the law is by the lights of some unjust. The result has been the almost complete diplomatic isolation of Israel. But for the United States standing in the way, the world would almost certainly have moved against Israel by now. I believe it was K2K who stated that his presence here is part of his personal contribution to preventing the de-legitimization of Israel. As Phillips urges us to consider that criticism of the legality of the settlements may be a disservice to Israel, even if the criticism is well-founded, those who are inclined to follow his advice should consider that perhaps it is they who are doing Israel harm. The defense of the settlements is not working, to say the least. Israel has become increasingly isolated over this. It is in fact an outlaw. The arguments in its favor are dubious. Why continue to defend the indefensible, a demonstrable failure, and participate in inducing Israel to continue in this self-destructive behavior? How is that expressing one's friendship or love? Friends don't let friends drive drunk. To engage in this defense requires making arguments that are often preposterous. It also requires failing to notice that Israel has become an outlaw. The latter is accomplished by insisting that all of the rulings against Israel are simply the result of anti-Semitism. This in turn leads to the enemies list growing ever longer. It now includes anyone who asserts that the settlements are illegal, anyone who notices that the world as a whole believes them to be illegal, all of Europe, President Obama, Tom Friedman, Leon Wieseltier . . . At some point, whatever one's belief in one's own righteousness, it becomes necessary to recognize that, if virtually the whole world disagrees, there may be unpleasant consequences. It is not necessary for Israel to concede error or immediately uproot the settlements, because the world does not expect either to occur. It would improve matters if Israel would firmly halt settlement and building over the Green Line, yes, even in East Jerusalem. The US has given Israel the perfect out. It does not have to disavow its settlement policy. It need only claim that, in deference to the US and out of a sincere desire to achieve peace, it will suspend building during the pendency of face-to-face talks. This leaves the Arabs no excuse for avoiding talks. It allows Israel to suspend the activity that is isolating it diplomatically while saving face. It moves Israel closer to its indispensable patron, the US. Other than the fact that those with a vested interest in the continuation of the current policies will pitch a fit, what's not to like? Indeed, if Israel demonstrated its willingness to face down those interests, it would move itself much closer to the US and evidence that it is sincere about achieving peace. It is time for Israel to reclaim the moral high ground that it has squandered with its reckless settlement policy.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 9:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I wondered why this concept is not retroactive." Because it isn't. Until the 20th century, the "law of war" applied only to the conduct of war. It was not regarded as improper for a state to make war for any reason it saw fit, although efforts were made to create a stable order that would avoid war. Only in the 20th century, did a doctrine begin to emerge that aggressive war was per se a violation of international law. This is now codified in the UN Charter. Similarly, much of what was acceptable historically has been made unacceptable by the advance of positive international law in the form of multilateral treaties and conventions. It is understood by all that many things that happened in the past would be regarded as illegal today. It is also understood that attempting to apply modern legal principles retroactively would de-legitimize most of the states on earth and only lead to an unstable international order. Hence, there is tacit understanding that these rules, if not previously a part of customary international law, apply from the adoption of the relevant treaties and conventions. This is a practical accommodation to the realities of world history. The alternative would be worse.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, we know that KingBouloi thinks himself the only poster qualified here to make judgments on the Arab Israeli dispute. This he thinks gives him the right to bully anyone who disagrees with him. The fact that he keeps repeating his one argument shows the paucity of his reasoning on this issue. KING BULLY has also tried to pressure others to come out and play with him, since he is a very lonely fellow. This is why he posts here non stop. He is an obsessive poster, and a boring one. He is not a poster one can have confidence that he is completely rational.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On International law: Yes, Grotius was among the earliest advocates of international law, though I think that Thomas Aquinas also favored some such system with his advocacy of natural law. With all the international treaties international law is still pretty much a case of “the strong (nations) do what they can and the weak (nations) suffer what they must” to paraphrase Thucydides. International law has been more successful in commercial transactions than in criminal justice cases. The latest example of this being the President of the Sudan President Omar Hassan al-Bashir who been indicted but has been protected by the African union and the Arab League from being put on trial. He has also just been reelected President of the Sudan. Yes, it’s the same Arab league that wants to condemn Israel in front of the ICC for numberless offenses. So much for international law!

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The following paragraph” “International law has been more successful in commercial transactions than in criminal justice cases. The latest example of this being the President of the Sudan President Omar Hassan al-Bashir who been indicted but has been protected by the African union and the Arab League from being put on trial. He has also just been reelected President of the Sudan.” Should read: “International law has been more successful in commercial transactions than in criminal justice cases. The latest example of this being the President of the Sudan President Omar Hassan al-Bashir who had been indicted but is being protected by the African union and the Arab League (and many Muslim countries) from being put on trial. He has also just been reelected President of the Sudan.”

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "I wondered why that concept is not retroactive." Well, as the saying goes, if it were, it would be; as it isn't, it ain't. You're right, international law evolved, and it has evolved quite a bit since the heady days of President Polk and the Alamo, or for that matter Stalin. As roid has mentioned time and again, it does not really serve the supporters of Israel - and I am one - to 1) constantly harp on the fact that others are worse (or, even more ridiculously, others were worse at some point in the past), and 2) deny not just the application, but the very legitimacy, of undisputed international law. Colonisation, settlement of occupied territories, denial of rights to indigenous or occupied populations, outright annexation of conquered territory ... these are manifestly and indisputably illegal. What is more, the United States has been at the forefront of ensuring that they are and remain internationally illegal. Whatever one's view of the settlements, anyone who seeks to defend these by reference to the settlement of conquered territories in the past does great disservice to the cause of Israel. "BTW, I thought NATO bombed Serbia to stop their genocide of Bosnian Muslims (?)." Well, this single sentence tells me volumes about your posts. For one thing, it is easy enough to check, you know. That you assert this without checking first makes me question your other assertions and arguments. For another, the Bonian War ended in 1995, following the Dayton Accords. The Nato campaign against Serbia was in 1999, and was aimed at preventing genocide in Kosovo. "And, no one is bombing Sudan to stop their actions in Darfur, which involve both forced migration of indigenous populations, genocide, and other crimes against humanity." Hmmm. Yes, no one is; the reasons for inaction are complex and have nothing whatever to do with international law. (The law there and its violations are not disputed; neither is the fact that the sitting President of Sudan is an indicted international criminal. But enforcement is a different matter. The two should not be conflated or confused.) In any event, I am puzzled by your reference. I would not wish to put Israel and Sudan in the same paragraph, frankly, and I am not sure why a supporter of Israel is bringing up multilateral inaction in Darfur as - presumably - some sort of implied justification for the propositions that 1) international law does not exist, and 2) Israel can engage in settling the occupied territories with international impunity.

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The only obsession in evidence here, jackson, is your obsession with me. I would almost guarantee that, if one counted the posts on this thread, there are more from you than from me and that more than half of yours refer to me rather than to the subject at hand. Talk about needing to get a life. I assure you, jackson, that you hold no interest for me whatsoever. You say nothing that is even mildly interesting or entertaining, whether I agree with it or not (assuming that is one can figure out in any particular case what you are trying to say). Pity for you that the converse is not the case.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 10:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He has also just been reelected President of the Sudan.” Yes, JD. And Milosevic died in a Dutch prison cell, even though he had been elected multiple times to various positions and had been supported by the Russian Federation; and his co-conspirators are being rounded up, one by one, and put on trial. Former presidents and ministers have been tried and found guilty, and imprisoned, by the Arusha court; and even in Sierra Leon, war criminals are being pursued, arrested and tried. "So much for international law!" Well, as I said above, I am not at all certain that it is wise policy or politics for Israel and its supporters to dispute the existence of international law or its legitimacy. It might have had some traction with Bush the Unripe and Rummy the Bulldozer for a brief period, but even they had to acknowledge that the existence and force of that pesky little thing, "decent respect to the opinion of mankind", and that other minor issue, Article VI of the Constitution of the United States: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ...."

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 10:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

k2k the reference to the guy from the west coast was a reference to malahat who lives on Vancouver Island. I referenced you in brackets with a questio mark was a bit of a joke because you proclaimed that you ignored poetry. Icarusr: thanks for your response. I will with such time permitting as I have peck and sniff my way around your comments as I am frank to admit I have no learning in these matters but can follow a legal argument. As to "...you can't get out of legal obligations by renaming what you are doing...." By my questions to you I was simply posing my not understanding how the text, specifically the word "transfer", at my first blush, could apply to the voluntary movement of peoples. Clearly, or seemingly clearly, the word is part of a prohibition against certain state action. If there is a functional account of the meaning of "transfer" that trumps what it it seems to mean on an initial plain reading of the text, as seems to be suggested here, I'll be interested to sort through that as best i can. So I don't know who's renaming anything, if anybody is. But as I say I'll do such looking around as I can and get back to you.

- basman

April 19, 2010 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KINGBULL does protest too much! I suppose his latest reply means that he will not be addressing any of my posts again. I should be so lucky.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Other than to put down your juvenile attacks, jackson, I seldom have anything to say about your posts. You confuse the fact that I do respond to your attacks with interest in what you have to say. Are you in fact just looking for attention? If so, wouldn't you be better off trying to compose something thoughtful rather than just trying to think up a new name to call me each time you post? Don't you realize how foolish and out-of-control you look this way?

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr “Yes, JD. And Milosevic died in a Dutch prison cell, even though he had been elected multiple times to various positions and had been supported by the Russian Federation; and his co-conspirators are being rounded up, one by one, and put on trial. Former presidents and ministers have been tried and found guilty, and imprisoned, by the Arusha court; and even in Sierra Leon, war criminals are being pursued, arrested and tried.” Had been supported, Icarus. As soon as that support was withdrawn he could arrested. This means that only those criminals without backing fro some large and powerful country (or groups of countries) could be brought to trial. I am not sure that proves the viability of international law. “…as I said above, I am not at all certain that it is wise policy or politics for Israel and its supporters to dispute the existence of international law or its legitimacy.” Legitimacy is not the same as existence, Icarus. International law exists, but the fact that it’s applied in such a biased manner doesn’t say much for its legitimacy. When the international court will hear cases dealing with say China over Tibet or Iran over its treatment of the Baha’i among other countries one will be able to have some faith in its legitimacy. Btw: was Saddam ever prosecuted over the gassing of the Kurds? “It might have had some traction with Bush the Unripe and Rummy the Bulldozer for a brief period, but even they had to acknowledge that the existence and force of that pesky little thing, "decent respect to the opinion of mankind", and that other minor issue, Article VI of the Constitution of the United States: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ...."” Bush isn’t the issue, and the clause "decent respect to the opinion of mankind" can interpreted in many different ways. Its meaning is too relative and variable to be a useful guide to the implementation of law.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh no, KING BULLJIVE isn't obsessed with me. He just types my name on his posts without thinking. Ha!

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: Rudyard Kipling is my poet laureate :) icarus: my historical frame is that Israel fought a defensive war in 1967, and that anyone dissatisfied with the outcome should have moved on, so good luck with persuading me otherwise :) In honor of the 62nd anniversary of the "reestablishment of the State of Israel" because language matters more than ever in the new intifada of lawfare, I thank Danny Ayalon for the following in The Jerusalem Post: "The verbal terrorism and attacks on our legitimacy will fail just as every other tactic before it. " http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=173484 "Continuing Herzl’s dream By DANNY AYALON 19/04/2010 04:57 This year we celebrate 62 years since the reestablishment of the State of Israel and 150 years since the birth of the Zionist visionary Theodor (Binyamin Ze’ev) Herzl. We can look around our nation and take enormous pride in what we have achieved in the few decades since Jewish sovereignty returned to the land of our fathers. Herzl famously wrote, “If you will it, it is no dream” more than 100 years ago, but unfortunately he died only a few years later. His dream, a Jewish state, would against all the odds be recreated in its ancient land, as he prophetically stated, less than five decades later. Today, most of us have not known a time without the State of Israel. Few alive remember the battles, the struggles and sacrifices that the early Zionists and even early Israelis had to endure to ensure that Herzl’s vision would not remain a dream. Too many take the presence of Israel for granted, and this has allowed us to become complacent about its role and its future. We must never forget that we are a reborn nation surrounded by many enemies intent on our destruction. When David Ben-Gurion read the Declaration of Independence at the Tel Aviv Museum in 1948, the ink had barely dried before five Arab armies invaded our infant state to destroy us. For many decades afterward, Arab armies would attempt to destroy Israel on the conventional battlefield, but none were successful. Today, we can claim with pride that we have the strongest military in the region and those hostile to us have learned they cannot defeat us this way. Next, our enemies tried to defeat us economically. The Arab League initiated a boycott against our state when we were welcoming hundreds of thousands of our brothers and sisters from around the globe. They issued ultimatums to every company in the world, telling them that if they conducted business with the Jewish state, they would not be able to conduct business with any Arab state. Today we have one of the world’s strongest economies and are about to join the OECD, the forum of the most powerful global economies. After economic warfare also failed, our enemies began an unconventional and terrorist war against us. Israelis and Jews have been butchered in their thousands by extremists who chose their death over our life. Although no one can claim that the threat is 100 percent extinguished, we have managed to beat this scourge and today far fewer innocent people are being killed by terrorists, even though there are still daily attempts. HAVING FAILED on so many occasions, our enemies have lately discovered a new way to attack us. This is through the current delegitimization campaign and so-called “lawfare” and may prove to be our toughest battle yet. Our enemies know they have distinct advantages that are difficult to contend with. They have an automatic majority in international institutions and have created an orchestrated system to tar the Jewish state as akin to the Nazis or the racist apartheid regime. They prevent us from speaking on campuses or having our voice heard in forums, and deny us freedom of speech because they know that if our voice is heard our enemies’ flawed narrative will collapse. Although few know it or report on it, the Organization of Islamic Conference clearly stated on a number of occasions that it initiated the Goldstone Commission. How many of those who scream about Israeli war crimes know they are the mouthpiece of autocratic regimes? How many of those who read about the attempted arrest of Israeli officials in Europe realize that these attempts are initiated, supported and funded by those in our region who will not allow a woman to vote and kill or oppress their own people? However, the verbal terrorism and attacks on our legitimacy will fail just as every other tactic before it. Nevertheless, to win this battle we must reinforce education about our history and purpose. We need to further the understanding of our historical, religious, moral and legal rights. Too few of our people understand that our modern legal rights are not based on history, religion or the Holocaust, as important as each of these is, but because the international community came together in 1920 as rarely seen before and conferred national rights in Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people. LESS THAN a week after we celebrate Independence Day, we will commemorate 90 years since the San Remo Conference. Few nations can show such a determined and unified statement of intent for their national aspirations. When we add this to the corpus of international statements, resolutions and treaties, we will find that although we are perhaps the only member of the United Nations whose legitimacy is regularly questioned, few nations have such modern legal instruments as the Jewish state with which to cement our legitimacy. We need to learn these facts and teach them to others. On this Independence Day, many see the glass half empty. We have so many challenges and obstacles to overcome. However, we should remember our achievements. Intellectual property will become the greatest resource of the 21st century, and Israel stands at the forefront of innovation and technology. Its inventions and technological knowledge are making the deserts bloom in Africa, saving millions of lives through medical innovation, creating alternative energies and securing the future of many people around the world. We have continued Herzl’s vision, even after our independence, and are dreaming of bigger and better things. This is why we have a bright future, and we can make it even brighter, not only for Israel, but for all the people who are inspired, assisted and supported by Israel. " The writer is deputy minister of foreign affairs.

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: I thought you were making a semantic distinction between "settlement" and "transfer". In the case of occupied territories (any occupied territories, and not those in the West Bank), the distinction is not one that makes a difference. 1. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the provisions of a treaty are to be given their ordinary meaning, in good faith and in context, in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty. The meaning of "deportation" is easy enough to discern; the question is whether transfer must imply an act of state (as opposed to mere tacit do-nothingness in the face of movement of people). The word "transfer" in its utter nakedness might imply the need for a positive act, but the word needs to be interpreted in context, including the historical framework of its negotiations, as well its object and purpose. Think about the Geneva Conventions and what they were responding to: Germany has occupied vast tracts of Russia and Ukraine for the express purpose of creating Lebensraum. (Leave aside the justice of the German or the Russian cause, because that is not at issue.) Germany says, well, we just occupied the land; we are not transferring any Germans, but if Germans want to go there and settle, well, they can, because we are not really "transferring" populations, we are letting them settle the empty land. And think about international law generally, in respect of the responsibility of states, as set out in the Iran-US cases: a state is not only responsible for active violations of international law, but for preventing its commission. That is, a state may not do indirectly by inaction what it is not permitted to do directly by positive act. In this sense, there is no real difference between "transfer" and "settlement". 2. By definition, the residents of the occupied territories do not have the capacity to permit or to deny movement of persons into their midst. The authority over movement, and settlement (in its garden variety meaning) rests with the occupying power. Given that, in this instance, the occupying power not only permits the settlement of Jews in the West Bank, but actively abets it (by providing armed protection), it would be a stretch to argue that no "transfer" is taking place, even in a restricted sense of that word.

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Looks like according to icarus's reading of it, international law cannot really address the complicated situation in the West Bank. According to his International Law, Jews, who are citizens of Israel, and who bear a historical attachment to places in the WB as their cultural, national and religious heartland, are forbidden to settle and live there. The only way they can do so is if they incorporate the WB into Israel and give their denizens the same rights as Israelis do to vote for their government and preferred way of life. The result of such a move will be the dissolution of the Jewish state, constant unrest, mutual massacres, and eventually an ethnic cleansing of the Jews from the Middle East. If anyone disagrees with this scenario please raise your hand. That means that the only way Jews can live in their heartland is by agreeing to commit national suicide. And that means that international law leaves two alternatives to Israel: 1. either you evacuate the areas that are the Jewish heartland, Or 2. if you want to continue to reside there in compliance with international law, you create the conditions for your own ethnic cleansing. Which means that international law will be de-facto complicit in Israel's annihilation. Either way, Jews are the losers. They can lose their history, or they can lose their country. Jewish history in Palestine was the engine of Zionism, why Jews from all over the world streamed towards Israel. You gut Zionism of its historical core (something that is being systematically carried out by the Waqf in jerusalem) and what you have is just an alien people sitting on land that does not belong to them. Like Whites in South Africa. Or Europeans in America. What a neat sleight of international law.

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson: having 'faith in its legitimacy' is the rub in international lawfare. icarus also used "undisputed international law." is that an oxymoron? are not disputes how law evolves on a case by case basis? even the Ten Commandments are still being debated! let another day of twisted kishkes commentary continue while I ponder the implications of the sheep war between Armenia and Iran...

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 11:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The claim that Jews must as a matter of history and historical attachment be permitted to settle in the West Bank as they will leads ineluctably to the right of return of Palestinians to Israel. I imagine that the Palestinians would take that deal. It is, at the end, referred to as the "one-state solution." It is also likely that the Palestinians would accept for their state all of the land west of the Green Line, including the Israeli settler population as Palestinian citizens, if Israel would accept an equal number of Palestinian refugees for return to the land east of the Green Line. Would Israel accept that? Not likely, and for demographic reasons it would be unwise to do so. It is not possible for Israel to be a Jewish majority state comprising all of the land west of the Jordan without committing one or another crime against humanity. That is why Ben-Gurion accepted the partition plan. All of history, including the habitation by Arabs in the land of Israel, cannot be undone. Even some Palestinian political writers have derided the notion that there can be both a Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and a right of Palestinian return to Israel -- as "one state for us and another state for us." It doesn't make much more sense coming from the Israeli side. One can also note that the Israeli settler population likely exceeds already the entire Jewish population of the West Bank prior to the war of independence plus their descendants. But, as I said, if Israel were desirous of conceding the land west of the Green Line in exchange for accepting a like number of Arab Palestinian refugees east of the Green Line, it can likely make that deal rather quickly.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

International law can and does address the complicated situation in the West Bank. Some people just don't like the legal outcome. That is invariably the case in legal disputes. At least one party, often both, don't like the outcome that the law requires.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"icarus also used "undisputed international law." is that an oxymoron? are not disputes how law evolves on a case by case basis? even the Ten Commandments are still being debated!" Genocide is indisputably an international crime. There is no dispute about the law. Apartheid is also an international crime. So is slavery. So is piracy. Short of a lunatic, you are not going to find a lawyer who will get up in court and deny that each of these is a crime under international law. This is what is meant by "undisputed international law." You may argue about whether certain facts fit within the scope of the law. That is an argument about application but not about the existence of the law itself. You might even argue about the specific phrases - whether, for example, "transfer" is the same thing as "settlement" - but that does not mean that there is any dispute about the fact of Article 49 being international law, or that colonisation as a concept is against the law. "icarus: my historical frame is that Israel fought a defensive war in 1967, and that anyone dissatisfied with the outcome should have moved on, so good luck with persuading me otherwise :)." I didn't think I could persuade you of anything, frankly - you make assertions that are not based in fact and quote scholars who write propaganda in fields other than their own - take these not as attempts at opening what is, by your own admission, a closed mind, but rather to correct the record for those who, like Basman, actually engage in discussion.

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, "Jews, who are citizens of Israel, and who bear a historical attachment to places in the WB as their cultural, national and religious heartland," So then we should return California back to the Mexicans. Because a lot of people could go by your logic and get kind of stuck. You know, the fact that the Native Americans have more of a right to to North American than do their current citizens. You are perfect, do you know that?

- MOLLYSIMON

April 19, 2010 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Legitimacy is not the same as existence, Icarus." Which is actually why I used both terms. All law is a reflection of power; application of the law is no different. But the law checks raw power and moderates, and mitigates, its application; what it also does, for the powerful, is ensure a modicum of equilibrium. Without international law, for the US to get its way, it would have to have armed battalions stationed in every client state; by devising international law and selling "the Rule of Law" to the rest of humanity, the commercial powers of the West ensure that their concepts, approaches and interests are advanced with a minimum of cost. Israel's nuclear arms and the IDF might protect Israel militarily; without the web of international law, Israel would be slowly suffocated.

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have been accused here of insisting that Israel vacate the West Bank because I believe that the settlements are illegal under international law. In fact, I have not ventured an opinion as to what should happen. As to what will happen, I have said only that, if Israel cannot negotiate its way out of dominion over the West Bank, it will relatively soon be forced out. This is not my opinion about what should happen, but about what will happen. At this point, I am going to venture my opinion about what will happen as a final settlement, just for the heck of it: With just a couple of exceptions, the entire West Bank, and ultimately Gaza, will comprise a Palestinian Arab state. The settlements will be allowed to remain with the settlers as Jewish citizens of Palestine. The numbers that remain will be equal to the number of Arab refugees that Israel agrees to accept east of the Green Line. Thus, many of the smaller and/or more remote settlements will be evacuated so that Israel can limit the number of returnees. That will be the end of Palestinian refugee claims. The annexed area around Jerusalem will be conceded to Israel, with a Palestinian enclave in East Jerusalem (the boundaries of which I won't attempt to sketch). Because there will be an Israeli border surrounding the enclave and again to the east, the city will be open so that all Jerusalem residents can circulate freely within the enclave and within Israel. I think Israel could likely barter this for an Israeli enclave in Hebron if it wanted to. There will be some territorial adjustment for the annexed land so that the physical area of Palestine in the West Bank is equal to the area of the West Bank on the eve of the Six Day War. The virtue of this, apart from satisfying religious sentiment on both sides, is that this is tantamount to an exchange of hostages. As for the settlement bloc that will come to rest in a new Palestine, it does not need to be stated openly that, if there are serious security threats to the residents, the IDF will be back and that land will be annexed. So, both Jerusalem and the threat of final annexation are there as the inducement to the Palestinians to respect the rights, and ensure the safety, of the Jewish citizens of Palestine. Ultimately, there will be a right of free passage between Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for an Israeli right of free passage from the Dead Sea border to Jerusalem and from both to the Galilee via the Jordan River valley. Again, hostages on both sides. This will require the pacification of Gaza which will likely follow by some years the establishment of a Palestinian state. Security arrangements are going to be difficult. Israel should have used its position as the occupying power to build a viable polity in the territories, reducing its profile over time so that it could withdraw in safety, with or without formal settlement of borders. In thrall to its territorial ambitions, the opportunity was squandered. This will mean greater risks going forward. The most important security issue is the Jordan River, as the West Bank is otherwise surrounded by Israel. This will require international participation, unfortunately. * * * I believe this settlement could be achieved relatively quickly if Israel had the will. But even doing that will require adroit diplomacy and negotiation. Barak and Clinton's negotiations were horrific. You never put your last best offer on the table. You always withhold something that you can concede in order to seal the deal, unless you are actually trying to crater the negotiations. This means that Netanyahu has to be kept away and forced to shut up. Him and his ministers. If he needs to bring Kadima into his coalition to accomplish this, he damned well better do so. Somewhere in Israel is a brilliant and smooth negotiator, fluent in beautiful Arabic, maybe an Iraqi Jew, who can be given the mandate to take care of the negotiations with the government setting some boundaries and then leaving him or her alone. This person needs to be identified.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus, I appreciate your comments. your 10:12 am comment"...the very legitimacy, of undisputed international law. Colonisation, settlement of occupied territories, denial of rights to indigenous or occupied populations, outright annexation of conquered territory ... these are manifestly and indisputably illegal. ..." confused me. You conflated the "law" with your belief that Israeli "occupation" after the 1967 war is illegal. I do not see the evidence for the illegality the way you do. A state of war existed, and it is unfortunate for everyone that neither Egypt nor Jordan chose to include Gaza and the West Bank respectively in their subsequent land-for-peace treaties with Israel. The shame of the Muslim world is the way they have used Palestinians as pawns, and continue to deny the legitamacy of the State of Israel as a homeland for world Jewry on any piece of land. The dilemma for Jews is that, no matter where we try to live, the host country inevitably changes it's mind, even the United States. Jerusalem has always been the historic heart of the Jews, there is nowhere else for us to go. Risen fails to see that Israel is also a nation of immigrants from all lands, and that the United States is building a wall along the Mexican border, and erecting bureacratic walls to keep terrorists out of the U.S.. Risen's view of today's Israel is tainted by his secularism. (the only good Jew is a secular humanist?). Why does Risen claim that being a Jewish State in incompatible to being a democracy when the Islamic State of Afghanistan is a 'fledgling democracy on life support' with NATO and American blood and treasure? my apologies for any incoherence. just tired of being the 'ethnic OTHER' in my 57 years in AMERICA, which is why I regret not making Aliyah. Risen states in his third email to Klein, that "first America is a nation built by immigrants, who come here to seek opportunity or to escape discrimination or oppression in other lands. The greatness of the United States is that it is open to immigrants from all lands (a policy constantly under political threat, but that's another story) and the country is bulldozed and remade by each new wave from Ireland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico, China, Japan, Vietnam, Cuba, Haiti, and yes, Palestine. They are Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists. The Census Bureau now projects that by 2050, a majority of Americans will be members of groups now considered minorities. Certainly, illegal immigration is always a hot political issue, but there is general support for legal immigration, because Americans realize that immigrants bring strength, skills, talent, brainpower, ideas. The great American idea was transparency. The great American political battles have always been about fighting nativist fears, fighting discrimination, and forcing the country to live up to its ideal of a society open to all. Israel, on the other hand, seems to be a democracy that has taken counsel of its fears. It seems to hate a changing world, and is a country that wants to pick a fight with the demographer. Israel wants to be both a democracy and a Jewish state. But will the United States keep providing support when and if those two goals seem increasingly at odds, as Israel has to keep building more walls? ..."

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga writes: -- According to his International Law, Jews, who are citizens of Israel, and who bear a historical attachment to places in the WB as their cultural, national and religious heartland, are forbidden to settle and live there. The only way they can do so is if they incorporate the WB into Israel and give their denizens the same rights as Israelis do to vote for their government and preferred way of life. (my emphasis) The highlighted portion of noga's comment demonstrates at best a lack of imagination and at worst downright ignorance. The obvious way for Israelis to be permitted to move to the Occupied Palestinian Territories would be to end the conflict which provides the legal basis for the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Then Israelis would be able to move to Hebron, or wherever, subject only to the immigration law of the (new) State of Palestine. But this is not only because it is his international law. It is because it is also your international law and my international law. But above all of us is that it is the international law Israeli signed on August 12, 1949 and ratified on June 7, 1951 subject only to the following reservation: -- Subject to the reservation that, while respecting the inviolability of the distinctive signs and emblems provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, Israel will use the Red Shield of David as the emblem and distinctive sign provided for in this Convention http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/35D52356F487FC85C1256402003F9563?OpenDocument

- ndmackenzie

April 19, 2010 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "You conflated the "law" with your belief that Israeli "occupation" after the 1967 war is illegal." You missed the point of my posts entirely. The ongoing military occupation is different from settlement of the occupied territories by Israeli citizens. It is the latter that is certainly, unambiguously, illegal. In any event, whether occupation can be justified (and it might be, for security reasons), settlement in the occupied territories, as Roid has observed repeatedly, actually increases risks to Israeli citizens and worsens the security situation, at least for the settlements - so the two, security and settlement, cannot be rationally advanced at the same time, under international law. As well, while annexation is generally no longer accepted (see Iraq, Kuwait 1991), certainly annexation without extending political, social and economic rights to the local population would be a crime against humanity. There is nothing incompatible between a Jewish state and democracy - in principle. But, let me pose a counterfactual: a drop in immigration, coupled with an increase in Arab Israeli population, leading to an Arab/Muslim majority in 2030. Do the democratic and the demographic math and let me know what the answer is.

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr "Genocide is indisputably an international crime. There is no dispute about the law. Apartheid is also an international crime. So is slavery. So is piracy. " Unfortunately, it seems that the only international crime listed above that is beyond dispute is apartheid. Everyone seems to agree that Apartheid was practiced in South Africa. Defining the other crimes is not as easy as Icarus seems too think. Even in Rwanda the US didn't want to call the murder of Tutsis while ongoing "genocide" though it clearly was genocide. And who will offer a clear definition of slavery, today? Saying that a crime is beyond dispute is one thing, recognizing and dealing with the crime is something else.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The antisemitic mackenzie ( he who thinks Israelis are “zionazis”) has come to stand shoulder to shoulder with KING BULL, no surprise there.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a forum where everyone knows what an international crime is and who is the chief villain: “UN Human Rights Council Adopts Five Resolutions Against Israel by Cem Ertür http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18348 The UN was established to help put an end to antisemitism. Instead it has become a place which disseminates antisemitic material. So much for the impartiality of international law.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr “Israel's nuclear arms and the IDF might protect Israel militarily; without the web of international law, Israel would be slowly suffocated.” That may be so, but it still doesn’t prove the fairness, or even the legitimacy of international law. International law is subject to all the machinations of political deal making.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"International Law" at its surrealist best: "One of the latest attacks, Resolution A/HRC/13/L.29, passed by the infamous UN Human Rights Council last month, accuses Israel of “grave human rights violations” in Gaza and “occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem”. But this time, the Council, which has never once condemned terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, has now criticized the Simon Wiesenthal Center for building a Museum of Tolerance in the heart of West Jerusalem. The UNHRC, contrary to a unanimous decision of Israel’s Supreme Court, falsely claims that our project is being built “on part of the historic Mamila Cemetery ... excavat[ing] ancient tombs”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our project is being built on the former municipal car park of Jerusalem, where for nearly 50 years, Jews, Christians and Muslims parked their cars (see photo right). As the Supreme Court stated, "For almost 50 years the compound has not been a part of the cemetery, and it was used for various public purposes ... This area was not regarded as a cemetery by the general public or by the Muslim community ... No one denied this position." (Bones between 200 – 400 years old were found and re-interred in an nearby Muslim cemetery. No markers or tombstones were ever found on the site). Recently an article, in the Palestine Post, dated November 22, 1945, exposes just how outrageous and cynical the current campaign is – for three years before there was a State of Israel, the Supreme Moslem Council authorized the building of a commercial center, including a bank and factory on the actual Mamila Cemetery itself. But those seeking to demonize Israel and all supporters of Zion are not deterred by the facts." http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=318264#post318264

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD: "Even in Rwanda the US didn't want to call the murder of Tutsis while ongoing "genocide" though it clearly was genocide." The US reluctance speaks, in fact, to the force of the law rather than the opposite. The specific reason cited by Albright was that to call what was going on in Rwanda "genocide" would have involved state responsibility under international law to act to stop it. They did not call it genocide, not because there was any doubt about the facts or the law, but to avoid legal responsibility. "International law is subject to all the machinations of political deal making." Of course. So is domestic law. The law is not less legitimate or less of a law because of the deal-making inherent in giving the law its substance. This is the case whether the law binds individuals or nations, and is passed by domestic legislatures or ratified by them in the form of treaties.

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr JD: "Even in Rwanda the US didn't want to call the murder of Tutsis while ongoing "genocide" though it clearly was genocide." “The US reluctance speaks, in fact, to the force of the law rather than the opposite. ….They did not call it genocide, not because there was any doubt about the facts or the law, but to avoid legal responsibility.” Yes, I know, but if the stops States from calling a crime by its right name, of what good is the law? Law is supposed to protect the victims, isn’t it? Or is it all a matter of creating the illusion of “justice” after the crime has been committed? JD: "International law is subject to all the machinations of political deal making." Icarus: “Of course. So is domestic law. The law is not less legitimate or less of a law because of the deal-making inherent in giving the law its substance. This is the case whether the law binds individuals or nations, and is passed by domestic legislatures or ratified by them in the form of treaties.” The difference between domestic political deal making and international political deal making is that in the former the politicians are accountable to its citizens. Has there ever been an instance where, say, a British Prime Minister was voted out of office by citizens of another country because of his political deal making? The other difference is that domestic law speaks a language which the citizens subject to it (those capable of understanding) can understand without the need of translation. International law is a foreign tongue and, as in poetry, there is much lost in translation.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The expression we learned in law school is very apt: "When you have the facts, pound the facts. If you don't have the facts, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." The self-proclaimed great continually express their befuddlement about the difference between the legality of military occupation and the legality of settling the occupier's civilian population in occupied territory. The prohibition against the latter applies without regard to whether the occupation itself is legal or illegal. But they claim to be unable to understand this. When it is made so plain that even a moderately literate 10-year can understand, they tell us stories about all the other terrible things that happen in the world, about other accusations that are clearly false, about the sufferings of Arab women, the Holocaust, war crimes committed elsewhere, pretty much anything that comes to mind with which they can change the subject and hope to obscure the reality that Israel has made itself an outlaw. When their obfuscations will no longer serve, they profess not to believe in the "existence" of international law. When the conduct of nations demonstrates that international law does have force, even if that force is inconsistent, they deny the "validity" of international law. When it is pointed out that Israel is itself a High Contracting Party to the convention that is supposed to have neither existence nor validity, what do they do? Why of course, they call someone, preferably as many as they can, an anti-Semite. The truth is simply unbearable for them. If the great friends of Israel who post here are in any way indicative of the level of discussion in Israel itself, then that country is in terrible, terrible trouble, lost in a fog of lies and obfuscation by which it denies the reality of its situation. I hope that is not the case.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The self-proclaimed great friend of Israel continually express their befuddlement about the difference between the legality of military occupation and the legality of settling the occupier's civilian population in occupied territory."

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know jackson, I think I am being persuaded to your point of view. The essence of discussion here is name-calling. Henceforth, I shall refer to you as "jackass." It fits, don't you think? Jackass . . . rolls right off the tongue.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More obsessive and repetitive posting by KINGBULLY!

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD: "...if the stops States from calling a crime by its right name, of what good is the law? Law is supposed to protect the victims, isn’t it? Or is it all a matter of creating the illusion of “justice” after the crime has been committed?" Jimmy Carter, great humanitarian and peacemaker: "There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does not meet that legal standard... Carter, whose charitable foundation, the Carter Center, worked to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), said: "If you read the law textbooks ... you'll see very clearly that it's not genocide and to call it genocide falsely just to exaggerate a horrible situation I don't think it helps."

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr mine is very at hand and cobbled hastily together, and no doubt has been dealt with better and deeper on this thread, but bear with me even if you have you have re-invent the wheel some. And don’t hesitate to explain it to me like I’m a three year old. (Also, I don't what has gone on in this thread since I read your post this morning. So if I'm repeating what other have said here more than once, or even just once, then again I ask you simply to bear with me.) Phillips in his essay cited on this thread argued that the use of the word ”forcibly” in what I’ll call Article 49 (1) must be read into the word “transfer” in “49(6) on the theory that modifiers don’t have to be repeated. That seems a bad argument. And it makes policy sense to me that 49(6) wouldn’t restrict “transfer” by the occupying power. For, with that qualification, the occupying power would be free to transfer masses of its willing citizens and effectively colonize the occupied territory. I have a little more trouble with voluntary movements of people constituting “transfer” but your point—states simply allowing masses of their citizens to move en masse to territories they occupy, even without real state action as kind of constructive transfer—sounds right to me. And when there are government inducements to such en masse movements, the transfer seems to me be less “constructive” or deemed and more like transfer as such. Where I have more trouble is where history and legal argument start to merge. And I would start here with the example of what is called East Jerusalem. It was behind the green line. Yet the mytho-historical connection between Jews and all of Jerusalem and its holy cites is so riveted that it seems counter intuitive, to me at any rate, that Jews should not flock to live in East Jerusalem whether actively aided or not by the their government. The legal version of my counter intuition gets expressed in some of the arguments for the legality of the settlements generally. The legal argument here goes something like this: The Palestine Mandate, and the Balfour Delcaration, were carried into international law, (the existence of which I of course recognize) by their confirmation by the League of Nations and then in 1945 by the U.N. in its Charter. Those originating documents gave expression to the right of self-determination. Mandated Palestine was geographically to house a homeland for the Jewish people. So part of the argument is that until resolution of final status of any particular, there is no legal basis for barring Jews from settling there—the Rostow notion of “unallocated territory”. This argument looks back to article 6 of the Mandate: “the Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage . . . close settlement by Jews on the lands, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” The argument is reinforced by the argument that Jordan’s seizure of the occupied territories after 1948 was unlawful. Israel fighting a war of self defence and subsequently taking the territory in lawful exercise of self-defence has, against Jordan, better title. All of that is given resonance as I say by the mytho-historical claim of Jews to live in Palestine. Under this claim Jews trace their lived connection to Palestine to biblical times and say they have had continuous presence there and a “historical right” to it. If this account reasonably informs Jewish claims to East Jerusalem, what is the principled distinction between that and their claims to the Territories? None of the above is to suggest that creating and maintaining the settlements is good policy; nor is it to excuse injustices done to the Palestinians in any particular instances. But is to suggest that there seem to be reasonable arguments that Israelis can advance in the rarified realm of legal argument which ought not be the dog wagging good policy’s tail. From what I know I tend to agree with Nicholas Rostow’s conclusion—some of it admittedly soporific— that: …Although not all the arguments advanced for and against legality are strong, legal arguments on both sides are durable on what are central points of contention. It therefore makes little practical sense to raise the profile of the issue of legality, for it would only add an insoluble element to what is already an extremely difficult problem. The best approach for the United States is to do what it can to advance the cause of peace between Israel and all its neighbors, and to assist the parties in the resolution of all the issues that divide them on the basis of rights for all, Israelis and Palestinians. The U.S. government has a pressing interest in the resolution of these issues but, to succeed, a solution must reflect the parties’ acceptance of the need for peace. We cannot wave a wand a make them see the light. That position fairly describes the view of most U.S. administrations since 1967 and can therefore be said to accord with precedent. It is the wisest course….

- basman

April 19, 2010 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: I really have no views on East Jerusalem - expect perhaps to parrot Rostow's observation. Phillips' argument that "”forcibly” in what I’ll call Article 49 (1) must be read into the word “transfer” in “49(6) on the theory that modifiers don’t have to be repeated" is daft. If any of my students wrote that, it would be a close to automatic failure. The applicable legal maxim is exactly the opposite: "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius". That is, "to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other, or the alternative." Where "forcibly" is included in one provision and not included in another, it is taken as a positive intention on the part of the drafters not to have belonged in the second phrase.

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If transfer of people is the issue, why hasn't Poland and almost every other East European country been accused of violations of the Geneva accord since hundreds of thousands of people were expelled from these countries post WW2? The same is true for China in Tibet.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr on your short post on "forcibly" as argued by Phillips, we agree. Statutes are like good poems: every word and non repeated word is charged with legal meaning and significance.

- basman

April 19, 2010 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...is daft. If any of my students wrote that, it would be a close to automatic failure" I now recall how icarus once boasted that he never teaches undergraduates, that it was a waste of his time and brilliance. I wish icarus shared with us a few more secrets of his teaching credos and how his classes are highly sought and prestigious. It seems that humiliation and warnings to adhere to what the teacher says without venturing forth any dissenting interpretation plays some role in the pedagogical process. I'm also intrigued as to whether he tries to emulate Professor Charles W. Kingsfield. As I recall, the professor had no need to blow his own horn, though.

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The League of Nations mandate contemplated a Jewish homeland "in Palestine," not a Jewish homeland "of Palestine," however bounded. The UN Partition Plan of 1947 determined the boundaries of the Jewish homeland. As a result of the refusal of Arab states to accept the Partition and their invasion and attempted destruction of Israel, the lines of the Partition Plan were rendered moot. The 1949 armistice expressly reserved the question of final borders, at the behest of the Arabs. Thus, since 1949, Israel has not had any settled, internationally recognized borders within the Mandate area (excluding the portion that became Jordan), that is, within what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Israel did, however, incorporate all of the territory that it held under the 1949 armistice, extending its municipal law to that territory and political and civil rights to all the inhabitants. As a result, there is no plausible claim that the land west of the Green Line, the 1949 armistice line, was "occupied" within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. The border remained technically unsettled, but the area governed by Israel has not been occupied since the armistice and its incorporation. Because the 1947 Partition lines were rendered moot by aggressive war, Israel arguably retains claims to the portion of the Mandate between the Green Line and the Jordan. However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of settlement under the 4th Geneva Convention. If Israel had incorporated the territory it occupied in 1967, there would still have existed a border dispute, but the territory would not have been occupied within the meaning of the Convention. It is Israel itself, by maintaining the territory under military occupation government, that determines, definitively, that the 4th Geneva Convention continues to apply there, because this is precisely the condition -- military occupation -- to which the Convention by its terms applies. The territory annexed in east Jerusalam and environs is no longer occupied within the meaning of the 4th Geneva Convention. The legality of the annexation is a separate question. The border remains disputed and Resolutions 242 and 338 require that it be settled by negotiation. At some point, the Security Council may conclude that the borders cannot be settled by negotiation and may make other provision. All of that has nothing whatever to do with settlement in occupied territory. So long as the occupying power maintains the status of the territory as occupied, it must abide by the 4th Geneva Convention. If Israel annexed and incorporated the West Bank, extending its regular municipal law there, there would be other questions of law raised, including the legality of the annexation, but the territory would no longer be occupied. If Israel incorporated the West Bank without according normal political and civil rights to the inhabitants, it would likely be guilty of apartheid. I cannot quite understand why it is so difficult to understand that the 4th Geneva Convention is a human rights treaty that protects inhabitants of "occupied territory" and not some all-purpose international law that decides borders, the legality of occupation, sovereignty, the consequences of illegal annexation or of population settled during an illegal annexation. The Convention pertains to its subject: the rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory and the duties that are owed to them by the occupying power. It binds the High Contracting Parties, including Israel, when its predicate conditions are met. Many other questions, including territorial claims and borders, can remain outstanding even though the Convention applies.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus expresses a perfectly civilized opinion about a matter of legal interpretation and the jackal pack responds with personal insult. Next, the jackal pack will claim that icarus is abusive because the jackal pack abused him. They are, one and all, incapable of responding to any sort of rational argument -- too ignorant, too stupid, too over-wrought. So, when they don't like the argument, the abuse starts. Soon they will again begin to complain of the lack of civilized debate on this thread that they have polluted with their abusive behavior and their inability to engage in any debate, civilized or otherwise. All perfectly predictable.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For better or worse, Tibet is incorporated in China. It is not occupied within the meaning of the 4th Geneva Convention. The 4th Geneva Convention was adopted in 1949. It does not apply to events prior to its adoption.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman writes: -- It therefore makes little practical sense to raise the profile of the issue of legality, for it would only add an insoluble element to what is already an extremely difficult problem. This is more than convenient for someone who finds international law dispositive against the mytho-historical claim's he favors. International law provides a neutral framework within which a solution must be found. There can be no hope of a solution guided by the mytho-historical claim of only one party to this (or any) dispute. That, of course, is the central goal of those like Phillips who lie about the applicability of the Article 49(6) to the Israeli settlements. Indeed, pretty much all results of a Google query on this claimed inapplicability lead back to Phillips, who appears intent on creating fresh historical myth - myth with no basis in fact.

- ndmackenzie

April 19, 2010 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid wrote: "It is also likely that the Palestinians would accept for their state all of the land west of the Green Line, including the Israeli settler population as Palestinian citizens, if Israel would accept an equal number of Palestinian refugees for return to the land east of the Green Line." The poor, confused fellow has reversed "east" and "west".

- TNR.Reader

April 19, 2010 at 6:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

does anyone think the Palestinians will decide WHO represents them in ANY kind of negotiation with Israel before 2012? Why should any Israeli government have even indirect talks with Abbas or Fayyad until there is an election? the delegitimization campaign of verbal terrorism and lawfare against Israel generates endless false charges of "war crimes". Are we near the moment when Israel will just do what she has to do to solve the Palestinian question between the Green Line and the Jordan River. Maybe that will induce Jordan and other Arab countries to offer full citizenship to Palestinians, which has been a "crime against humanity" since 1948. noga: time for Dickens' fictional characters?

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tibet has been incorporated into China, sure enough. So, if you are a superpower and take over a small country and incorporate it into your own without the consent of the people, forbid them to speak their own language, practice their own religion and treat its culture as one of the many “minority groups in China, then it is legal under international law. Again, one law for the powerful and one for the postage stamp size countries.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga I must say your post of today @5:45 pm is strictly "from hunger"--see Duddy Kravitz-- on a number of grounds. 1. You don't know what you are talking about on the specific point. Icarusr is indubtably right and expressed that in a typically Icarussianr pungent way, which is simply the way he posts. He insulted no one here by what he said. 2. Rather than deal with the substance of his point, you simply sneer at him and descend into ad hominem irrelevancies. 3. Implicit in your insulting of him is the pretense that you have the competence to know that there is an argument to be made against what he says when anyone with a few weeks of law school under their belt, Phillips cynically included, knows better. For your sneering insinuation is that Icarusr stifles dissenting views in his classes. That renders you analogous to creationists who contend that intellligent design should be taught in schools as a "rival theory" to evolution. We all know how Stanley Fish eviscerated that claim. My advice, drawn from the public domain, and worth every penny you are paying for it: as a general proposition, if you have nothing constructive to say, say nothing at all.

- basman

April 19, 2010 at 6:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdyer: "Again, one law for the powerful and one for the postage stamp size countries." China's military occupied Tibet in 1950. China and India are still working on settling their border war from 1962. how about Jammu-Kashmir? yes jackson, one law for the powerful, and, maybe a third law for the Zionists :)

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: I'm not a Richler aficionado. Your allusion is lost on me, though I can guess your intention in making it. I can't stand roi's mini-me acting like he invented this thing called intelligence. I can't stand his boastful, macho tone and sneering condescension towards anyone who disagrees with his view of the world. It's insufferable. My post was not in response to any plausible point he may or may not have made. My post was intended as a very sour critique of the way he chooses to make his points.

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice attempt to change the subject, Noga. But Basman was specifically talking about Icarusr. Furthermore, you have failed to get back to me on whether California should be given back to Mexico.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 19, 2010 at 7:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But Basman was specifically talking about Icarusr." So was I, Mollsy.

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 7:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes you were noga, and icarusr's "sneering condescension" is indeed "insufferable", especially for a teacher, if that is what he is. Mollsy, Mexican immigration is retaking what the U.S. stole, though these days, California is more of a liability than a gain. FWIW, I think every nation state who stole territory in aggressive wars should either now give it back, or at least apologize and pay for it. Any nation who acquired territory in a defensive war (ISRAEL) can do what meets their security needs until the Palestinians find leadership who think peace is a good option. The United States should lead by example, starting with Cuba.

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I cannot imagine anybody in their right mind describing Icarus this way. Maybe Roid on a bad day, but Icarus is one of the kindest among us. He frankly refrained from calling K2K an idiot where most of us would have cracked. As for California, nice dodge. I see you've been studying at the Jackson school of debate. Which essentially means you think a different set of standards apply to Israel. With all the "Judea" and "Samaria" crap that comes with it. (Talk about idol worship.)

- MOLLYSIMON

April 19, 2010 at 9:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: Didn't read your entire post. In any case, Israel's security and real estate needs are two completely different subjects. Stealing water and private property from Palestinians really wasn't a part of the deal in '48. And don't try to argue on the steal: Israel itself has admitted as much. So once again, we come back to the argument that Roid has brilliantly been making. Real Estate and Occupation are two different animals.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 19, 2010 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That Tibet is not occupied within the meaning of the 4th Geneva Convention because it is incorporated as a part of metropolitan China does not mean that the incorporation was legal. It means that the particular predicate conditions that make the 4th Geneva Convention applicable no longer exist. That does not mean either that there is no relevant international law. However, as China is a member of the Security Council, there is no practical means of challenging its possession. It would perhaps be possible for an action to be brought in the International Court of Criminal Justice, but there would be no means of enforcing it. This, however, is also the case with respect to the ICJ ruling on the separation barrier. It is unenforced because the US, with its veto, will not permit it. The Security Council was also unable to do anything about the Iraq war. There is indeed one law for the permanent members of the Security Council, who enjoy de facto immunity, and for everyone else. That was recognized as a "problem" at the time the UN was designed, but it is not so much a problem of the UN structure. That does not change the reality that the only thing that stands between Israel and the enforcement of a whole variety of UN resolutions is the US and its veto. Precisely the reason why the US, and not Israel, will ultimately set the limits of what Israel can insist upon on negotiations with the Palestinians and the reason why Israeli leadership, if it were not in the grip of messianic fantasies, would not be giving the finger to the president of the United States for meaningless symbolism -- meaningless in the sense that it will not change the final outcome.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 9:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"not so much a problem of the UN structure as the fact that some powers are great powers and therefore have more freedom than lesser powers." The UN merely reflects the reality of the world and tries to mitigate the effects of unrestrained power politics. It cannot make them go away. Hence, it only functions when the great powers act in concert. * * * Quite right, TNR.reader. I transposed east and west in a sentence. Fortunately, the error caused no fatalities.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON “As for California, nice dodge. I see you've been studying at the Jackson school of debate. Which essentially means you think a different set of standards apply to Israel. With all the "Judea" and "Samaria" crap that comes with it. (Talk about idol worship.)” Molly, you are dreaming again. Just as you were dreaming when you decided that most stockbrokers on Wall Street were Jewish. Now, when did I say that I think that “a different set of standards applies to Israel and to everyone else? The opposite is the case. Most people who denounce Israel, including you, at time apply different more onerous standards to Israel than to any other country! I said repeatedly that Israel will have to abandon most of the settlements on the West bank. How is that applying a different standard, Molly? I also noticed that of all the posters who are the meanest when writing to and about Noga. There is also something personal in your dislike of her views. It goes way beyond her opinions. What exactly is your problem with her posts? Do you feel that women shouldn’t express themselves with vigor?

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 9:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“That Tibet is not occupied within the meaning of the 4th Geneva Convention because it is incorporated as a part of metropolitan China does not mean that the incorporation was legal.” So, in order to obviate the Geneva convention a large country should invade a smaller one incorporate it into its territory forbid the people who lived there before to practice its own culture, which in essence means commit genocide, (in the strict definition of the term, ‘the systematic destruction of an ethnic cultural group’) and pretend that all the citizens of that smaller country are no citizens of the larger invading one. And some people think that international law is a moral force in the world. “However, as China is a member of the Security Council, there is no practical means of challenging its possession.” My point exactly!

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 10:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K writes: "Are we near the moment when Israel will just do what she has to do to solve the Palestinian question between the Green Line and the Jordan River. Maybe that will induce Jordan and other Arab countries to offer full citizenship to Palestinians, which has been a "crime against humanity" since 1948." It appears that K2K is calling for the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, an unambiguous war crime.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 10:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"yes jackson, one law for the powerful, and, maybe a third law for the Zionists :)" K2K You are big too kind. In this “international legal and moral system,” the Zionists are outside the law, period. There are about 55 Muslim countries out of some 195. That’s more than a quarter and these folk have an undue influence on setting the agenda of the international legal system. So much for the morality of international law!

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 10:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whether or not international law is a "moral force in the world" can fairly be debated. That it is a force in the world with consequences cannot be debated. The consequences of Israel's violations of international law will be limited to those that the US will permit. Thus, there is one law for great powers and those with great power patrons and another law for everyone else. So what? The system that restrains aggressive war and crimes against humanity works when the great powers are in concert and not otherwise because they have the power, with or without the UN. The UN structure gives some order and boundaries to the exercise of power; it does not make power vanish. The great powers will not permit that, and they need not -- because they have the power. Israel is a very small power.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Are we near the moment when Israel will just do what she has to do to solve the Palestinian question between the Green Line and the Jordan River. Maybe that will induce Jordan and other Arab countries to offer full citizenship to Palestinians, which has been a "crime against humanity" since 1948." K2K I must say, K that I have no idea what you are driving at. Your suggestion is both impractical and immoral.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roudubouloi writes: -- This, however, is also the case with respect to the ICJ ruling on the separation barrier. It is unenforced because the US, with its veto, will not permit it. I don't think this is completely correct. The decision is uneforced because it is only an advisory opinion consequent to United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/14 of 8 December 2003 in which it: -- Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question (my emphasis): -- What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? My reason for suggesting roidubouloi is not completely correct is that there is little doubt that the United States would have vetoed any attempt to send an actionable case to the International Court of Justice.

- ndmackenzie

April 19, 2010 at 10:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, you're absolutely right. I am going after her in a personal way. And it's not very cool of me. I think PART of it is about her being a very assertive female--that is, if I'm going to be completely honest here (which means you better not attack me on that flank, Jackson). But that's just a part of the equation. The other part is that I abhor her views. She is very extreme in her opinions. Plus, she often doesn't get humor. Which I now realize is a language barrier. I mean, her English for the most part is impeccable (in some ways better than my own). But when she doesn't get humor she comes off as humorless, which truly drives me bonkers (you can ask my husband). But, you're right--it's not fair to hold it against her. It was downright mean. What can I say? It was extremely ungracious of me to bait you like that. So, Noga, I'm feeling bad about baiting you, believe it or not. I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies. Also, I enjoy your read on books and movies. But on the subject of settlements, I don't think Hebron and East Jerusalem are "rightfully Israel's." I think that many people have a claim to Hebron and Jerusalem, and I believe that tying our claims to a history that's long gone is is an overreach, to say the least. And tenuous, too. If an area of land has been in Arab hands since before Israeli independence, that's enough for me. PS. Guys, I hate to break it to you, but Jackson was the one to start this particular flame war with Roi. I was following the thread and was almost getting bored b/c things were so civil. And then, Jackson, you made that crack about even Roi being right for a change in a very snide manner. Roid was honestly trying to be nice--it was very clear in his writing.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 19, 2010 at 10:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Should read, "What can I say, Noga?"

- MOLLYSIMON

April 19, 2010 at 10:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whether an ICJ ruling is advisory or not depends on the nature of its jurisdiction in a particular case. An advisory ruling is not considered "binding" because it is not a matter that the affected state parties have submitted for decision; it is advice requested by a UN body on a question of international law. However, the ICJ has no independent power to enforce its rulings. The only body that can enforce them is the UN Security Council. Even if the Security Council itself had submitted the question, it would still be up to the Security Council to decide whether and how to enforce it. Similarly, an advisory opinion such as the ICJ ruling on the separation barrier could be taken up by the Security Council under one of its jurisdictional provisions and enforced even though the Security Council did not submit the question. ICJ rulings, regardless of jurisdiction, are enforced only to the extent that the Security Council is moved to do so and no permanent member is moved to veto. As a practical matter, they are always advisory to the Security Council. There are no legal consequences to the separation barrier case unless and until the Security Council takes action, except for the possibility that some state could use this as a basis for a criminal prosecution against an Israeli official found within its jurisdiction. This is more or less as unlikely as a prosecution against George W. Bush. Some cases, because the targets are too powerful or have patrons who are too powerful, will not be taken up by the ICCJ. I have it on pretty good authority, from a friend high up in a relevant section of the DOJ to whom I posed this very question, that the international court will not take on cases that, because of the political fallout, might fatally undermine the ICCJ itself. Many states are vulnerable to claims of human rights violations and thus reluctant to start a series of tit-for-tat prosecutions. As a result, only the international pariahs are prosecuted.

- roidubouloi

April 19, 2010 at 10:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But on the subject of settlements, I don't think Hebron and East Jerusalem are "rightfully Israel's."" Hebron isn't part of Israel, but East Jerusalem is another matter. Yes, the flame wars are all my fault, just as the recent Wall Street collapse was all the fault of the Yids. So you see, you found me out. As for Noga’s English it richer than yours, and even though I disagree with her point of view about the settlements would rather read her posts than almost those of anyone else. I also don’t think she doesn’t get your “jokes.” I hate to break it to you, but your jokes aren’t that funny, Molly.

- jdyer

April 19, 2010 at 10:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...when you [MollySimon]decided that most stockbrokers on Wall Street were Jewish. " (JD) I was so surprised to hear this about Mollsy that you could have knocked me over with a feather. Who would have thunk?

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I disagree with her point of view about the settlements " I don't think we disagree about much, jackson. I think we both agree about Jerusalem and we both agree that most of the settlements are not practicable (except those along the Green Line which are necessary for Israel's security). What we disagree about is whether this ought to be Israel's formal concession BEFORE the Palestinians renounce their RoR. I also do not want to see a war between the IDF and the settlers. It will be much healthier all around if the settlers could be persuaded to leave willingly, and transport their attachment to somewhere nearby. Like in the Negev, or the Galilee. If they are persuaded that coming to the end of one chapter does not mean there is not a very worthwhile second chapter to be written about Jewish history. I am extremely wary of demonizing settlers the way it is done on CNN, al-Jazeera or even Ha'aretz. I also can't stand the way roi goes about expressing his friendship and love for Israel. It is a symptom that I simply cannot understand, this irresistible impulse to persuade by brutal and vulgar villification and de-humanization.

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for the explanations about international law! I appreciate it - Icarusr, Basman, Roi, et. al. as well as the discussion. As for Israel per se - I can see where there are some innate conflicts because the original Balfour Declaration and League of Nations decisions but also because of the lack of a formal border - also the intervening annexations and ethnic cleansing of Jews by Jordan. As for an actual solution I don't see why Roi's idea is impossible or unreasonable at least on paper. The problem might be that it wouldn't work unless people were really prepared to live in peace because economically it might be impossible to "split the baby," if only because of water resources. This goes for the Golan too but that's probably a less emotional issue and maybe could be settled financially. Anyway, for either state (Israel, Palestinian Arab state) to survive there would have to be close economic and social cooperation between them. I think the problem of hatred and fear have to be addressed along with attempts to restart negotiations. I don't think the degree of resentment is fully appreciated, nor the security threat; nor do I have any brilliant ideas as to how to address this. And, even if 90% of the people in region agreed, ok, so done is done what about the other 10%? We see what havoc can be wreaked by relatively small numbers of extremists. And the essentially Nazi ideology of some Middle Eastern "resistance" organizations cannot be ignored. Once that stuff takes root it's awfully difficult to eradicate and there's a lot of outside incitement. Ideas? That's the key issue I think - real hatred - combined with unremitting outside incitement - and on a broader level from what I can tell antisemitism is getting worse, not better - the anti-Israel mythos is growing ever more extreme and truly ugly even here. In some respects Jewish history is largely being disregarded or even claimed to be false if not outright nonexistent, and the uniquely precarious situation of the Jewish people over a long period of time is often either mocked, ignored or even blamed on the Jews. Indeed I fear President Obama's good intentions have unleashed something evil - or to be more accurate The Great Housing Spat has - the ugliness was there - under the surface - but people like Dennis Ross weren't being openly accused of "dual loyalty" by a putative member of a sitting Administration. Comments linking Israel to American loss of "blood and treasure," even if not directly linked contextually. should concern us all. What to do?

- Sophia

April 19, 2010 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, and as for Mollsy's attitude towards me, I can't say for sure but I have my own theories about it and none of them is kind to her. I find Molls altogether useless, an irritant and a bore.

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 11:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Anyway, for either state (Israel, Palestinian Arab state) to survive there would have to be close economic and social cooperation between them. " Wouldn't it be nice if the Palestinians realized that they have much more to gain from becoming friends with Israel than continue to pin their hopes on the Arabs and Ahmadtula to destroy it for them? It once seemed almost to happen, the few years following Oslo, before the suicide bombings began.

- noga1

April 19, 2010 at 11:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, Molly and Roid: many thanks for the kind words. I think this is where one takes one's leave from the discussion :>.

- icarusr

April 19, 2010 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson to K2K: "Your suggestion is both impractical and immoral." Well, I am exasperated at the double standard that Israel is held to. Why is there no pressure on Jordan or Lebanon to offer full citizenship to their 'Palestinian refugees unto the third generation'? If Zionists are going to be blamed for all that is wrong in the world, why worry about gaining the good opinion of others? If Israel is going to be accused of war crimes every time they do anything, why not offer the West Bank Palestinians relocation packages to Jordan? I would prefer to relocate Israel to New York, relocate the U.N. to somewhere with lots of parking and bad restaurants, and New York can secede from the U.S. as the great compromise to world peace. "The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters",

- K2K

April 19, 2010 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thank you Sophia, for emphasizing the real hatred. I would start with new curricula in all Palestinian schools. Germany and Japan managed to re-educate their citizens within one generation. And, the children teach their parents.

- K2K

April 20, 2010 at 12:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is in essence a fascist sensibility that believes that love of country requires refraining from criticizing its excesses and moral failings. Many wish the Germans had been more alert when it was still possible to be critical and no one foresaw the outcome. Sometimes we find fascist sensibilities in otherwise ordinary, even banal individuals. I deplore fascists and fascism. They place us all in peril.

- roidubouloi

April 20, 2010 at 7:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi warning against fascism. Now there is a comedy. ".. if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years... applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people: Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. Communists: ...all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky's own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay... In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves..., Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively; War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling. Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people." Nothing is new under the sun.

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 8:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is a standard trope of fascism to proclaim oneself a victim, wallow in victimhood, and find therein justification for whatever immoral or prohibited deed the fascist wants done. As we can observe here, the soi-disant victim finds it hard to comprehend that conquering inhabited land, annexing and incorporating it, and then holding the inhabitants as a subordinate class would be immoral and impermissible apartheid. The burden of moral behavior fails to account for her victimhood. Another slides easily from justifying colonization to an open plea for ethnic cleansing so that the colonizer can then be free of the resistance to colonization. Criticism is of course allowed, in theory, but the criticism is never the right type of criticism. The words are too strong, they fail to show appropriate sympathy for those who have done improper things, they should be expressed only privately. And sometimes, often, the empty hole where moral sensibility should be comes with cultural adornment -- a taste for Brahms, perhaps, or Jane Austen -- by which we are to understand that it is not the ugliness that it appears to be but refined and beautiful . There is indeed nothing new under the sun. Nothing.

- roidubouloi

April 20, 2010 at 8:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K "jackson to K2K: "Your suggestion is both impractical and immoral." Well, I am exasperated at the double standard that Israel is held to." Yes, but your solution will only make matters worse, much worse.

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...But it takes two to tango, and in this case, Obama does not dance like a star. He gives every appearance of not "getting" Israel; not appreciating its fears or its history. Israel is not half of the equation, as if both sides are right. It is a democracy with American values that has tried, over and over again, to make peace with a recalcitrant and unforgiving enemy. ...But the political middle, particularly the Israeli middle, is scared. It would give up East Jerusalem and the West Bank for peace -- only it is skeptical that even those concessions would work. None of this is theoretical. It is about life and death. It is about rockets coming in from Gaza yet again. It is about Hezbollah's Scud missiles and the reasonable apprehension that Hamas would oust the moderate (and hapless) Palestinian Authority from the West Bank and turn the area into the functional equivalent of Gaza, an Islamic republic whose charter is a stew of crackpot anti-Semitism laced with death threats. ..." [excerpts from] Richard Cohen April 20, 2010 Copyright 2010, Washington Post Writers Group http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/20/the_perception_of_good_intentions_105235.html

- K2K

April 20, 2010 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is a standard trope of fascism to proclaim oneself a victim, wallow in victimhood, and find therein justification for whatever immoral or prohibited deed the fascist wants done." Most of the late 19th and 20th centuries ideologies began from a standpoint of victimhood: true of Communism which turned victimhood into a science. It's also true of Fascism which began as a revangist attitude and whose essence was and is ressentiment as described by Nietzsche. Still, the motivating force of these ideologies was the creation “new world orders” in which the favored classes or races would triumph and their class and race enemies would perish. Both the communists and the fascists hated above all the bourgeoisie. In today’s’ world many of the so called “human rights” are staffed by refugees from these ideological movements and are motivated by a similar feeling of victimhood and ressentiment against their “bourgeois’” enemies. This is why they blame the US and Israel and see them as the cause of most of the “misery in the world.”

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In today’s’ world many of the so called “human rights” are staffed by refugees from these ideological movements" This is splendidly formulated and I ask leave to use it in future for my own nefarious ends. (Marc Garlasco comes to mind.) "... the motivating force of these ideologies was the creation “new world orders” in which the favored classes or races would triumph and their class and race enemies would perish." You may want to wonder what compels the aforementioned "refugees" to sweep Zionism into the same category reserved for these movements.

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 10:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson: "20 Hours in America", The West Wing 2002. NSA Nancy McNally "You want peace in the Middle East?...." Imaginary solutions aside, removing Israelis from their settlements on Obama's schedule will tear Israel into pieces, for all the world to enjoy. The arrogance of Obama is dangerous for the entire Middle East. recommend reading this JPost interview with Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon. http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=173354

- K2K

April 20, 2010 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In today’s’ world many of the so called “human rights” [organizations] are staffed by refugees from these ideological movements" ergo, assuming this to be true, there are no longer any human right? Human rights violators should not be called to account? What exactly is the relevance of this? It seems that whatever improprieties or hypocrisies one manages correctly or incorrectly to ascribe "human rights organizations" have somehow managed to strip actual human beings, most of whom probably don't even know these organizations exist, of what were understood to be their inherent rights as people. What a remarkable and unlikely outcome that is.

- roidubouloi

April 20, 2010 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is but another anomaly of what is considered the defense of Israel that a barely functioning government, the Palestinian Authority, in a society and polity beset with illegal weapons and organized terrorists, the PA is to be held accountable for all violent acts against Israel. However, Israel, with a strong and functioning democratic government and a powerful army, cannot be expected to ensure that its citizens will comply with its laws. Rather, Israel will itself be "torn apart" if they are required to do so in implementation of a peace settlement negotiated and agreed to by the democratically elected Israeli government. Here we see the fascist threat in another form. If the right does not prevail democratically, it threatens resort to violence, and the democratic government of Israel cannot be held responsible for preventing that terrorism.

- roidubouloi

April 20, 2010 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What exactly is the relevance of this? " I will quote in this connection, Michael Ignatieff: “Global human rights consciousness, moreover, does not necessarily imply that the groups defending human rights actually believe the same things. Many ... espouse the universalist language of human rights but actually use it to defend highly particularist causes: the rights of particular national groups or minorities or classes or persons… The problem is that particularism conflicts with universalism at the point at which one’s commitment to a group leads one to countenance human rights violations towards another group.” (Ignatieff, Michael, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, 2001 p. 9) _________ "(i) Centred on accusations against Israel of war crimes, the reaction of outrage with which this post has been concerned might be thought to have been motivated by a respect for international humanitarian law. The arguments set out above show that that isn't so. The outrage is based rather on a cynicism towards international law which I have posted about before and which consists of treating international law as a mere convenience, something to use rhetorically and polemically when it suits you to do so - but only then. If there are war crimes on both sides of a single conflict and you condemn one side alone as in breach of the law, this is not respect for law; it is an unprincipled politicization of it. The development of international law is an important task for present and future generations but it does not benefit from being abused as a partisan political weapon." "(iii) To hold Israel to the standards of international humanitarian law, the elementary standards entailed by codes of human rights, is only right and proper. But to hold Israel to those standards, but not also its regional adversaries, suggests a special hostility towards it that needs some explanation. Not all of this hostility can be accounted anti-Semitic. But some of it is. Only the blindest can ignore the plain manifestations of anti-Semitism now evident both amongst Israel's regional adversaries and within the worldwide protests against Israel's actions in Gaza and disfiguring them. As worrying is the fact that the same liberal-left aforementioned that populates these protests and in doing so looks away from the crimes of Israel's opponents, a liberal-left that is, to a man and a woman, proud of its anti-racism, proud of its sensitivity to 'Islamophobia', is silent about this growth of anti-Semitism, shamefully silent, having forgotten in just the one case its avowed duty of solidarity with the victims of prejudice everywhere. Not much more than 60 years after the Jews of Europe were nearly annihilated, before the world stood back aghast to take the measure of what had been done and allowed to be done, the Jewish state has become an object of special opprobrium - opprobrium beyond that criticism which is justified, equitable, applied in equal measure to other nations when it fits. And the Jews of other countries are once again anxious - almost unthinkable, this, only a decade ago - as to how many friends the Jews have." http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/02/oneeyed-in-gaza.html _____________ Let me remind the readers of how roi described this kind of moral clarity: "It is a standard trope of fascism to proclaim oneself a victim, wallow in victimhood, and find therein justification for whatever immoral or prohibited deed the fascist wants done."

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That admirers of Nazism, (or at least of their memorabilia, as he claims) such Marc Garlasco, staff human rights organizations isn't the real issue, Noga. I assume that there are many more admirers of Communism and third world revolutionaries. Nor is there a problem with the concept of human rights; the problem arises when organizations set themselves up to define what human rights means and who is entitled to protection and who isn't. A recent Amnesty International ruling stated that: "the idea of jihad in self defence is not antithetical to human rights; and have explained that they meant only the specific form of violent jihad that Moazzam Begg and others in Cageprisoners assert is the individual obligation of every Muslim." This has caused the resignation of at least one member of Amnesty International. Read the whole statement: http://hurryupharry.org/2010/04/12/statement-by-gita-sahgal-on-leaving-amnesty-international/ We live in a global political world and there are no organizations that are above politics. That human rights groups believe they are, has in itself been the cause of much confusion and some injustice.

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Speaking of victimhood mentality: this story has all the ironies inherent in such claims: "Former communist turned rightwing nutjob Mike Vanderboegh– who urged the readers of his blog to break the windows of local Democratic party headquarters and Congressional district offices after Democrats in Congress approved health care reform legislation– told a small gathering of armed “gun rights” advocates in Virginia that they were like “another ‘determined minority,’ the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto.” http://hurryupharry.org/2010/04/20/warsaw-ghetto-abuse/ In France many people who vote for the far right also vote for the Communist parties there. Remember too that recently a high Catholic official in Rome claimed that the Church was being persecuted (because of charges of sexual abuse) the way the "Jews had been persecuted." You can't make these things up.

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 11:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

..The territory annexed in east Jerusalam and environs is no longer occupied within the meaning of the 4th Geneva Convention. The legality of the annexation is a separate question. The border remains disputed and Resolutions 242 and 338 require that it be settled by negotiation. At some point, the Security Council may conclude that the borders cannot be settled by negotiation and may make other provision... This paragraph is embedded in a very trenchant analysis, an analysis almost too compact and condensed to be fully understood. But my *question* is: why is East Jerusalem not "occupied" within the meaning of the Convention? Is it because--the legality of it aside-it was annexed? If so, what is the *legal* basis, if any, for objecting to Israel building/settling there? I can understand, regardless of agreement or disagreement with them, political objections--the ultimate status of Jerusalem is up for grabs, so don't be provocative by building where you won't necessarily be, don't create facts on the ground preempting final status resolution, and others. But, again, what's the legal objection, if any? Also, I'm not aware that Palestinians living behind the green line in East Jerusalem before 67 and now coming under the annexation umbrella have been given the same rights as all Israelis. I understand that they can vote locally, and some other things, but, as I say, my general understanding is that compared to Israeli citizens they are treated differentially in material respects. On the logic of the argument that runs through the above analysis in which the cited paragraph is embedded, it seems to folllow that Israel is, in effect, practicing a kind of apartheid with respect to them. I'm, pointedly, not trying to argue with these questions; I'm rather trying better to understand the immediate issues from the perspective of the above analysis.

- basman

April 20, 2010 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I for one would not defend any so-called human rights organization. A couple of decades ago, or more, I was a contributor to Amnesty International. I gave that up many years ago. However, the hypocrisy or corruption of such organizations should not render us, on our own, unable to form well-founded opinions about human rights questions. That human rights claims are also employed as a political weapon against us does not give us license to violate human rights. It should instead inspire us to the most punctilious compliance so that the hypocrites also cannot use our conduct to justify theirs. * * * Another anomaly: Those who claim, in effect, that with respect to policy east of the Green Line, Israel cannot be democratically governed are among the first to claim that external pressure on Israel with regard to those same policies is interference in its democratic, internal affairs.

- roidubouloi

April 20, 2010 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The problem is that particularism conflicts with universalism at the point at which one’s commitment to a group leads one to countenance human rights violations towards another group.” Hence we should not countenance human rights violations towards any group. And as we have moral agency only with respect to ourselves, we must take the responsibility for governing ourselves and our conduct regardless of the failure of others to do likewise.

- roidubouloi

April 20, 2010 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: you hit the nail right on the head. If Israel were convinced of the finality and legality of its annexation, it would have to extend full rights of citizenship to the annexed people living in the annexed territory. Legally. As it has not, it can be for one of two reasons. One, because Israel is practising apartheid in East Jerusalem, which is an international crime; or two, because Israel itself is not convinced of the legality of its annexation, in which case there are good arguments to be made that building settlements there is illegal. In any event, you are right that the objections are fundamentally political. And no less important for that.

- icarusr

April 20, 2010 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“However, the hypocrisy or corruption of such organizations should not render us, on our own, unable to form well-founded opinions about human rights questions. That human rights claims are also employed as a political weapon against us does not give us license to violate human rights.” No one said it did. Human rights, or more precisely, civil rights should be protected, but it shouldn’t become an excuse for advocating a specific political cause as Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have recently done. This is my last post here.

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oops, I forgot. Any truth-telling to Jackson, and he becomes a hot mess. In a weird way, you're like a microscopic example of Israel. It's never Israel's fault, it's always the Americans, the Arabs, the UN. Furthermore, I wasn't talking about my jokes only. But naturally, someone as narcissistic as you would assume so. (Though the man who comes up with the lamest epithets for posters really shouldn't be talking.) Using the word "jokes" alone was not specific enough. It really it should have read jokes, references and tone, with an emphasis on the latter two.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 20, 2010 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The collapse of wall Street? You make giant leaps of illogic, Jackson. Saying that Wall Street employs a disproportionate number of Jews is far from blaming the collapse on Jews. But maybe that's just projection on your part. Interesting.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 20, 2010 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Again, an error. It should have read "Israel's Likud."

- MOLLYSIMON

April 20, 2010 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Nor is there a problem with the concept of human rights; " There is a problem with Human Rights concept as soon as it is used as an instrument for delegitimization of one group by another. I would have no problem with NGO's advocating for Palestinian rights as such. I do have a problem with NGO's that advocate for Palestinians by pretending that they are concerned with universal human rights. Another problem that I have is the fact that there is no recognizable hierarchy in human rights. Thus the right for freedom of movement is cited as equally valid as the right to life and security. And this disregard to what comes first is to blame for much of the criticism leveled at Israel. If Israelis felt safe and secure, there would be no reason for any of the restrictions placed on the movements of the Palestinians, no need for a barrier to be erected. If Israelis felt their own human rights were not in danger, there would be no problem sharing Jerusalem or even allowing some Palestinian migration into Israel. Those who deliberately disregard and discard these concerns (rooted in very real history) do not care for human rights. The only Palestinian who understands this is Sari Nusseibeh and no one is listening to him. http://contentious-centrist.blogspot.com/2008/01/sari-nusseibeh-ii-solomonia-brings-prof.html

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

". (Though the man who comes up with the lamest epithets for posters really shouldn't be talking.)" You mean epithets like "non-Asperger people" and "aspies"? I can't imagine this was meant to be in self-denigration as you speak of "the man". http://zangezur.tripod.com/aradz/camel2.jpg

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the settlements are a red herring. land-for-peace can not work when your peace "partner" is stuck in a state of war for 62 years. basman, the following comment was for you in the Washington Diarist thread: fwiw basman, Israeli politics does not revolve around the relationship between the PM and the United States president. Wieseltier views the Netanyahu coalition as hard right, ready to bomb Iran, a stereotype that misses the current reality of Israeli political blocs. The big internal debate is between the secularists and the religious. Obama picked the wrong fight when he turned apartments in Ramat Shlomo into a public rift. NO Israeli PM would budge on Jerusalem. Yisrael Beitenu and Shas are the coalition kingmakers - and Netanyahu has his hands full mediating between them (Livni refused to give the Education ministry to Shas, which lost Kadima the coalition.) The secularists are dominated by Yisrael Beitenu, with the Meretz party a tiny minority who cannot stand Lieberman's nationalism any more than the religious haredi. the mizrahi alignment with Shas, whether the individual mizrahi is secular or observant, is another headache.

- K2K

April 20, 2010 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How interesting that both Jackson and Noga relish nursing their rage. I wonder what the advantage is.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 20, 2010 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks and sorry K2k: I'd given up looking. I'll respond to what you say there later on today or this evening. There's enough going on on this thread already.

- basman

April 20, 2010 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't flatter yourself, mollsy, that my asides to you are nursed by rage. Mockery is my intention and it seems to make you squirm in discomfort. If you want to see what rage looks like you should look to the raging bull.

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: the other threads are cold, and spring beckons. just thought you deserved one opinion on what Wieseltier (and apparently everyone else in Western media) is missing in his essay: the reality of Israeli politics. like here, so many are frozen in time, missing the enormous change that one million ex-Soviet immigrants have wrought on Israel since Oslo in 1993. The big issue in the last election was over marriage between a man and a woman if one could not prove Judaism through matrilineal descent. land-for-peace is no longer the formula for peace, so most of THIS thread, and Obama's policy, is much ado about nothing spring beckons.

- K2K

April 20, 2010 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wasn't sure I was right, so I looked it up. The East Jerusalem Arabs and the Golan Druze were both accorded permanent resident status, automatically, when those areas were annexed. They have the right to Israeli citizenship, but most have not done so whether out of attachment or to avoid stigmatization. I think this is a bit of an evasion. They should have been granted citizenship automatically and left free to exercise the rights of citizenship or not. But that is a rather small difference in the scheme of things and doesn't quite rise to the level of a human rights violation in my view. As permanent residents, they can vote in municipal elections. If they are not citizens, they cannot vote in national elections. Thus, the little bit of subterfuge has served to keep the Arab vote lower than otherwise. The Arab citizens of Israel enjoy full, formal legal equality, but are exempted from military service both out of concern for loyalty and in order not to subject them to an excruciating moral dilemma. The Druze are not exempted. Although there is formal equality, it is certainly not an equal society. There is plenty of soft social, employment, and housing discrimination and also government benefits and subsidies that are awarded in such a manner that they have the effect if not the intent of discriminating against Arab citizens. Given the far more serious issues between Arabs and Israelis, this doesn't get a lot of attention. Because east Jerusalem was annexed and the citizens virtually enjoy equal political rights, I do not believe that it falls any longer under the 4th Geneva Convention. Same with the Golan Heights. Nor would it be rational to say that such discrimination against Arab residents and citizens as exists rises even close to the level of apartheid. This are human rights issues, but domestic human rights issues. I don't know of any definitive law regarding people settled during an annexation that was illegal. The reason, I believe, is that this gets resolved when, if ever, the underlying border dispute is resolved and hence is resolved politically rather than legally. I think most of the precedent, if not all, including in the Soviet Union is that displacing people because of a change of the legal status of the territory is pretty much not done. When a country is in possession of territory over which it claims sovereignty, I believe its acts, if otherwise not illegal under international law, are considered valid, possession being 9/10ths of the law. What would happen in the case of settlement in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention is a lot less clear. It seems that the resolution there too will ultimately be politically rather than legally determined, although the view of the legalities will inevitably influence what the parties will accept and what a body such as the UN Security Council might insist that they accept if they cannot come to terms. As much as Israel is pessimistic about negotiating a solution, I believe it would be much better for Israel to negotiate its way out of its West Bank dominion than be forced out. And I am quite convinced that if it does not negotiate its way out fairly soon, it will be forced out. On that day, all the bluster about security, the unfairness, whatever, will be unavailing. A modern, culturally western society whose economy is fully integrated with the west is not going to allow itself to be subjected to sanctions and made a pariah unless the stakes really are life and death. While there would be risks entailed in evacuating the West Bank under Security Council order, I think Israel would have to do so. The only thing that seems to stand between Israel and such an order is the US. The Security Council cannot impose more than its most recalcitrant permanent member, in this case the US, will accept. It is because I am convinced that a deal that Israel can make for itself will likely be both better and more durable than an enforced solution that I think that self-interest obliges Israel to do whatever it reasonably can to start face-to-face negotiations with the Palestinians. For example, if the matter ultimately is taken up by the Security Council, there is a pretty good chance that it would order the complete evacuation by Israel of everything east of the Green Line, including the settlements and east Jerusalem. It should not be allowed to come to that. There is of course no guarantee that anything will avail to bring the Palestinians back to the table for bona fide negotiations in good faith. But, at the minimum, Israel should strive to ensure that the US perceives it as having made every reasonable effort. The willingness of the US to resist Security Council intervention, and thereby mitigate it if it comes, may depend on that.

- roidubouloi

April 20, 2010 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The notion persists that the only thing that Obama wanted in raising again the issue of a halt to building in east Jerusalem was to succeed at that, and hence he has failed and should have understood that he would fail. I don't think he was so naïve at all. It was most of all a signal to Netanyahu that the US does not accept Israeli claims to east Jerusalem as a necessary minimum for Israel. Therefore, if Netanyahu wants to secure something there, he had better get off his ass and work to secure it by agreement with the Palestinians. It also sets up an enforced solution, should it come to that, rather differently than current Israeli assumptions. Further, it serves to build some credit for Obama with the Arabs and those gives him credibility if and when he draws lines for them. Finally, the invitation to both sides to make public concessions at his behest was an invitation to both to demonstrate fealty. Neither did. Hence, he will feel politically justified, and will have an easier time justifying, the US more clearly pursuing its own self-interest. To see the whole episode as literally about 20 apartments and whether or not they will be built is a huge mistake. Those who kept insisting that it is not possible to have such a dispute over such small stakes were right, but they have been mostly unable to observe just what the stakes consist of.

- roidubouloi

April 20, 2010 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The immediately above--1:25 pm-- is a superb post, agree with its arguments or not. Thanks.

- basman

April 20, 2010 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I "squirm in discomfort"? Oh, yeah, I made an apology. "If you want to see what rage looks like you should look to the raging bull." Is that a metaphor? Are you telling me to watch the movie directed by Scorsese? Or do you want me to go to an actual ranch? I truly want to learn from you, Noga. My asshole skills are lacking.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 20, 2010 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"My asshole skills are lacking." This is the first time I've known you to underestimate your skills

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh for fuck's sake, can it both of you.

- basman

April 20, 2010 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I made an apology. " An apology means that you desist from the behavior that had given offense. Since you have shown no such inclination to do so, it follows that you don't understand what apology means. Next time just put in a dot or something and we'll take it as another slur hurled at me. This way you can have your cake and simultaneously allow basman some peace and quiet, too.

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Based on a prior post, molly, I think by "raging bull" she means me. If so, I take it as a compliment, albeit unintended. :-)

- roidubouloi

April 20, 2010 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I got testy with Jackson when he insulted me immediately after my attempt to move past this. I truly meant my apology to you and if that's not acceptable, well, then so be it. I enjoy your posts even if--or perhaps because of--my intense disagreement with them. There's not much else I can offer. And I am not a solo act in (unintentionally) pestering Basman. So don't put it all on me, tootsie.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 20, 2010 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman asks:

But my *question* is: why is East Jerusalem not "occupied" within the meaning of the Convention? Is it because--the legality of it aside-it was annexed? If so, what is the *legal* basis, if any, for objecting to Israel building/settling there? I can understand, regardless of agreement or disagreement with them, political objections--the ultimate status of Jerusalem is up for grabs, so don't be provocative by building where you won't necessarily be, don't create facts on the ground preempting final status resolution, and others. But, again, what's the legal objection, if any?
In fact, in 2001 the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly declared that East Jerusalem is subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention: -- 3. Taking into account art. 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and bearing in mind the United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution ES-10/7, the participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the applicability of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and reiterate the need for full respect for the provisions of the said Convention in that Territory. Through the present Declaration, they recall in particular the respective obligations under the Convention of all High Contracting Parties (para 4-7), of the parties to the conflict (para 8-11) and of the State of Israel as the Occupying Power (para 12-15). (my emphasis) http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList247/D86C9E662022D64E41256C6800366D55 Furthermore, the International Court of Justice made clear in its advisory opinion on the legality of the so-called separation wall that Article 49(6) is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territories including East Jerusalem:
120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory. In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has condiucted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited. The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Convention and: "to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979)i. The Council reaffirmed its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law. (my emphasis)
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf?PHPSESSID=7a735cdbdbcdc708bb939c7fdf649bf4 Given the declaration by the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention and advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice it does not matter what any of us believes about the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem). The competent international authorities have declared that it does apply. The great tragedy is that in appeasing Israeli war crimes American political leadership has betrayed the founding principle of the nation that all men are equal.

- ndmackenzie

April 20, 2010 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reason why violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are so important is that reckining for them will finally bring peace to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has shown itself to be hostage to a militant religious nationalism. The United States has shown itself paralized by four decades of appeasement. I believe the most likely way for this paralysis to end is the indictment of an Israeli politician for violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This indictment will almost certainly occur in Europe where there is far more understanding of the horrors of occupation than there is in the United States. But the indictment will finally make the United States understand that the current situation can not continue forever and it will be forced finally to consider genuine solutions to the problem. Martin Peretz and his acolytes may pretend that the current situation can continue forever but that is sheer delusion. With each passing season, more and more people outside Israel recognize the great wrong done by Israel to the Palestinian people. And they come out and declare that wrong. Andrew Sullivan writes of the number of times he gets smeared as an anti-Semite for doing so - and rightly ignores the smear. We can see in this thread how reason from icarusr and roidubouloi is attacked by the usual coterie who have no argument with which to fight reason - and so they resort to the name calling and the smearing. That is a poor defense of Israel - but, to be honest, with its continued violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention Israel does not give them much to work with.

- ndmackenzie

April 20, 2010 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, I got testy with Jackson " You got testy with jackson so you insulted me? Why? Are Jackson and I interchangeable twins? I'm perfectly willing to start a new chapter. Let's see how it goes. For basman's sake.

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON "How interesting that both Jackson and Noga relish nursing their rage. I wonder what the advantage is." I have no idea what you talking about, Molly, again. Most posters here get angry and insults other posters from time to time. However, Noga seems to be an exception. You Molly are a classic case of a passive aggressive poster. You are one of the most insincere posters here. You complain that I practice Idol worship (when writing about Israel) while claiming not to be religious. I asked you for proof and all you do is come with some other wild accusation. Molly, save your own passive aggressive rage for your therapist and unless you something pertinent and intelligent to say about some topic don’t bother to address any post to me. I am not interested in your views about other posters.

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm perfectly willing to start a new chapter." I am not. Molly has very little to say of substance on any subject. She spent half her life in therapy and thinks she has become one. It's a case of the patient hallucinating that she is the Doctor.

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 4:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, Noga.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 20, 2010 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON "The collapse of wall Street? You make giant leaps of illogic, Jackson. Saying that Wall Street employs a disproportionate number of Jews is far from blaming the collapse on Jews. But maybe that's just projection on your part. Interesting." This is a lie, Molly and you sound desperate and hysterical. You did say that most bankers on Wall Street were Jewish and even had you said “a disproportionate number of Jews’ that still wouldn’t be the case. Disproportionate to what? What would be the right proportions of Jews on Wall Street, or of Professors at Universities, of Doctors? Moreover, I didn’t say you said that they caused the collapse yet you did say that you were afraid that it would be blamed on them. Your hysterical fear of antisemitism has driven you to repeat antisemitic tropes. You had done this when you almost had conniption fit writing about “all the Holocaust Museums” which according to you exposed Jews too much and came at the expense of other Museums.

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, it would be too easy to reply at this point. I'm moving on.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 20, 2010 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON "Jackson, it would be too easy to reply at this point. I'm moving on." LOL, Molly. You are a joke.

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson, I'm in excellent company.

- MOLLYSIMON

April 20, 2010 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON "Jackson, I'm in excellent company." You like your funny farm, I see; plenty of fresh air, and lots of cute liitle dogies. Enjoy, and don't forget to take the prozac.

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I like to wish everyone who cares about Israel, a memorable Yom Hatzmaut: Here are some articles from the Forward commemorating the holiday: http://www.forward.com/sections/israel-independence-day/

- jdyer

April 20, 2010 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thanks jackson, a memorable Yom Hatzmaut to you. very much needed. I went to a lecture today, by a medieval scholar, on the use of scripture by the three Abrahamic religions. his compare/contrast of one clause in the Hamas Charter with the Pope's use of medieval Christian critique of Islam was a hoot. not as hysterical as the bizarre statement by ndmack at 4:09 pm that "Israel has shown itself to be hostage to a militant religious nationalism." wow, that is glaring ignorance of any fact. the campus was celebrating Palestinian Awareness Week, with a display posted on the busiest path on the campus. no mention of the current absence of a legitimate Palestinian political leader who can show up for negotiations with anyone on anything.

- K2K

April 20, 2010 at 8:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I went to a lecture today, by a medieval scholar," I envy you k2K. One of my intellectual heroes is Louis de Leon who lived in Spain at the end of the Middle Ages. I would have loved to attend one of his lectures at Salamanca University:)

- noga1

April 20, 2010 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, Yes, 14th century Spain would have been very interesting. Although the scholar's specialty is medieval Spain, the lecture title was "Scriptural Conflict, Scriptural Community: Judaism, Christianity, Islam". About how today's Christianity and Islam use medieval interpretations of the Bible and Koran, respectively, to justify or explain historic epsiodes involving Jews. I was glad to be reminded of the Sudanese Islamic scholar, Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, who I read about in 2006 in The New Yorker after touching on him in a history calss on "Political Islam" in 2005. Taha was used as a contrast to the reliance on early 14th century Ibn Taymiyyah's fatwa making jihad an obligation against 'unjust rulers' (those who use laws made by man instead of Sharia) by Sayyid Qutb in developing the 20th century infatuation with violence by Sunni fundamentalists like Al Q'aeda and Hamas. from wiki: [Taha was] "...the first man to propose a direct dialog for a peaceful co-existence between the Arab States and the State of Israel after the 1967 Six-Day War between the Arabs and Israel. He addressed that issue in his books Mushkilat Assharq Al-Awsat, or The Middle East Problem, and Al-Tahaddi Alladhi Yuagihu Al-Arab, or The Challenge Facing the Arabs..." Sudan executed Taha for heresy in 1985, because he did not believe Sharia law was appropriate for a multi-cultural, multi-religious nation like Sudan. Thought it would lead to civil wars. very prescient. So much for diversity of opinion in the Sunni Muslim world. The Shi'a do not follow Sunni fatwas. I need to dig out my books on Shi'a from 2005, especially the one on the Twelth Imam (a cleric relative of Moktada Al Sadr who was sent from Iran to Lebanon in the 1960's, allegedly murdered by Libya, but pivotal figure in the shift within Shi'a Islam from quietism to political Islam.

- K2K

April 20, 2010 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

what a coincidence. Peretz has just posted in The Spine on Obama's decision to "omit any mention of Islamic radicalism or jihad from strategic doctrine and public documents." Maybe he was at the same lecture. Just kidding. I was speaking with an academic before the lecture about TNR and Peretz after thanking her for teaching me about Israel's political system last year so that it is clearer how Likud is now the center due to the demographic shift since the migration of so many from the former Soviet Union. Maybe THIS thread will now end.

- K2K

April 20, 2010 at 10:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close