...because the goal is to demonize & dehumanize Jews as illegal subhumans, as colonial settlers, racist supremacists & thieves who have no right to live on their ancestral land. Which BTW is repugnant, not to mention a complete denial of Jewish history and indigenous rights. In other words, pure bigotry.

International law isn't law. It doesn't have the moral backing that law has. So there is a big difference between being "legal" under international law and being rightful. The reverse is true as well. Even if the Israeli settlements were "illegal" under international law, that wouldn't make them wrongful. So shouldn't Israel and her supporters deal with the ultimate question up front? Does Israel have the right to do with the territories what it wants, without including the current occupants in any way? Does it have the right to annex the territory without making the Palestinians citizens of Israel or giving them a say? I don't think so.

In a way what Israel is doing is similar to what the Palestinians want to do with right of return. They are changing the demographics of the territory against the wishes of the people already living there.

Is that the Zionists are not responsible for what the British did by giving away 3/4s of the mandate area to the Hashemites. That land was supposed to be split between the Jews up to the Jordan river and Palestinians on the east bank.

So it's hard to say what exactly is fair, depends on how far back you want to go I suppose.

We can't go back and "do it right," or, "the way it was supposed to be."

Last edited Fri Sep 23, 2016, 07:44 AM - Edit history (1)

transferring its own civilian population into occupied territory:

....it doesn't apply to Israel either. It really is that simple.

Morocco in Western Sahara
Turkey in North Cyprus
Russia in Georgia’s Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ukraine's Crimea
China in Tibet
Indonesia in E.Timor
Vietnam in Cambodia

The fact is Geneva Article 49(6) has never once been brought up at the UN about these settlements. Not ever, in any resolution. In fact, the UN has never called these developments in other nations "settlements". Only WRT Israel.

It's because Geneva 4 doesn't apply to settlements.

Besides, Israel's case is much stronger than any of the above situations (Jews indigenous to area, the OPT has never been sovereign territory).

If you can find where the UN invokes Geneva Article 49(6) and applies that to "settlements" elsewhere in the world, I'm sure you'll let us all know. Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Last edited Fri Sep 23, 2016, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Some of these territories are occupied, some are not and in some places there are examples of population transfer taking place and not so much in others. The problem is that the Israeli transfer of its own civilian population into occupied territory is probably the best example of how the provisions in the Geneva Convention are contravened.

If there was a another example of a country doing more or less the same as Israel does, and it wasn't more or less subjected to similar forms of criticism, I would think it was unfair. I must admit that my knowledge of the situation in most of the countries you mention is less than perfect, so if you could provide a more specific comparison it would help me understand what you mean.

Last edited Fri Sep 23, 2016, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

As to being unfair, China/Tibet is a big example. What China has done to Tibet is 100x worse than anything Israel has done. Over 1 million dead Tibetans, cultural genocide, and importing millions of Han Chinese settlers (sinicization).

The UN has never once invoked Geneva 49(6) or called these millions of Han Chinese "settlers".

If Israel's actions were really & truly against International Law & violate G49(6) then we should see the same UN resolutions for other situations around the globe. No need pretending to invoke "International Law" when Israel seems to be the only country violating such a law. That's not law, it's discrimination.

that the conditions are analogous.

Your own assertions aren't enough. I was hoping you actually had some good arguments supporting an analogy, because these examples are difficult subjects and Google won't give any clear answers.

......your lot has concocted over the past few decades.

And you're right about google, so here's an article about Kontorovich's new research paper:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/12/new-research-paper-unsettled-a-global-study-of-settlements-in-occupied-territories/?utm_term=.adb90d47562b

Download it here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2835908

The PDF is 66 pages long. If you doubt the claims, google those specific claims for confirmation.

I mentioned Tibet because it's the most obvious, most publicized example. Kontorovich avoids Tibet because the Chinese occupation preceded their signing of Geneva (also due to questions about Tibet's sovereignty). Of course, there was no Palestinian sovereignty either, but that doesn't stop the bigots & their idiotic arguments.

If you're still looking for hard evidence, I gave you 7 scenarios that Kontorovich writes about. We can start with any of those examples given his 66 page PDF.

Where would you like to start? Or is this where you disappear due to your silly narrative being challenged?

It'll work about as well as it did for the Afrikaaners.

Palestinian citizens of Israel serve in the legislature, sit on the Supreme Court, and have leadership positions in the military.

It is, in fact, one of the only liberal democracies in the region.

One would think states with legal segregation such as Saudi Arabia, or ones with laws restricting rights to one ethnic group over another such as Jordan, would have fallen by now.

as Israel does in the West Bank.

They're physically committed to the one-state solution at this point, so it's apartheid or/until bust.

......how many times do I have to post this ???............... You give it up .

This was written in 2007 .....now its much much worse .

Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

by SHULAMIT ALONI

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night–all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. “Why?” I asked the soldier. “It’s an order–this is a Jews-only road”, he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. “It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?”

Source : http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-is-apartheid-in-israel/

Last edited Sun Sep 25, 2016, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

......I have posted this more than once ....

Apartheid Highway 443

http://tv.social.org.il/en/apartheid-hw-443

Israeli Palestinian Arabs are ethnically & racially the same as Palestinians in the W.Bank. The former can use Israeli roads, the latter cannot due to citizenship.

Not Apartheid.

Any objective person knows that's just a dumb, idiotic accusation.

Israel is a unique country in many respects.

For instance, it is, I believe the only liberal democracy in the world whose very existence is deemed not only illegitimate by dozens of countries but also as an affront by hundreds of millions of people around the word.

In fact, most of the people in Israel's general neighborhood view the whole of Israel as occupied territory and many are committed to see its liberation some day (i.e. the eradication of Israel as a country).

That being said, Israel is also unique among liberal democracies, as you point out, for the promulgation of settlements in the West Bank and everything that goes along with the occupation.

I think we should all do everything we can to help bring about a situation where there is no longer such an occupation, where the Palestinian people have their own independent state, and where the peoples and countries of the middle east and around the world are able to accept Israel as a country.

At the Olympics, South Korean gymnasts posed with their North Korean counterparts, despite the horrors of the North Korean regime, yet athletes would not share a bus with Israelis or, in one case, shake hands. This antipathy to Israel by the peoples and countries in the region pre-dates the settlements.

It existed when the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza was occupied by Egypt.

1) unilaterally withdraw from the WB, with the exception of Jerusalem, take all the settlers with them and say "here you go PA, govern your land". Build whatever the want between that territory and Israel, and control who is allowed in to Israel.
2) Annex all of the West Bank, give everyone there full Israeli citizenship.
3) Status quo.
4) Negotiate at any cost with the PA for an agreement.
5) actually negotiate with the PA, and mean it.

Problems with each
1) the right wing, especially Jewish Home, yisrael beiteinu, would be up in arms over this. But if a moderate government can be formed, they probably can be silenced. It would require Zionist Union, Kulanu, Meretz, Yesh Atid to run one united front. Even then might need help from some of the Arab parties to form a coalition and implement this plan.
2) A one state solution, giving all Arabs in the WB Israeli citizenship, will likely mean that Israel becomes a majority Arab state in the near future.
3) Untenable. The situation there is not good and is bad politically for Israel from an international viewpoint
4) not going to happen. PA wants full RoR (which would destroy Israel as we know it)
5) the most likely option. Would require new leadership in Israel (probably from a grand coalition that excludes the religious and far right wing parties, but includes Zionist Union, Likud, Kulanu, Yesh Atid, and possibly, Meretz. It would also require Abbas to be gone, as he is corrupt and does not really desire peace as it would kill his stealing of money for his own use from the PA (just like Arafat before him). An eventual peace plan will require Israel withdrawing from 90% of the WB, with the exception of Jerusalem, and making sure that the WB state of Palestine is a continuous region, with no enclaves of Israeli power. Ideally, settlers livign there would stay, under Palestinian rule, or be compensated monetarily to leave and go back to Israel. RoR for Palestinians would be handled with allowing a token number of Palestinians into israel, (read few thousand), rest compensated monetarily. Jews thrown out of Arab countries would also be compensated. Jerusalem would remain in Israeli hands (with the Temple mount controlled by Islamic authorities). Under no plan was Jerusalem supposed to be a part of Palestine, I see no reason this should change.

....that wants all Jews dead or out of Israel altogether.

It's impossible to compromise with that. An example being half the week Hamas and the PLO will not kill Jews. Come on.

to the situation?
and I did say it would require Abbas to be out on his ass (as well as Bibi)

I'm for a settlement based on genuine peace. Even a cold peace.

But so long as peace is impossible, there won't be a solution anytime soon. The only way I see it happening soon is if neighborhood Sunni states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) put enough pressure on the Palestinians now that their relations are warming towards Israel. Otherwise, peace isn't happening anytime soon. There also can't be peace with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, etc.. running any part of Palestine. Anyone thinking these Jihadi organizations will make peace is delusional.

Fatah, (but not Abbas obviously, whomever replaces him), who are they supposed to negotiate with? There has to be somebody/group the negotiate with. There are no other choices. There is no military/dictator like with Egypt to negotiate with. There is no king, like with Jordan (or with SA whom I believe Israel is negotiating with/working with secretly)

But it shouldn't matter who the author is.
What's important is whether the facts or correct or can be proven to be bullshit.

.........of course it matters who the author is .

If you want to believe a far Right settler be my guest ..........I dont .

of Jerusalem go to Palestine? It never was supposed to be a part of Palestine under any plan. It just happened to be on the wrong side of a cease fire line.