Suffice to say, Yosi yet again scrapes the bottom of the barrel, and uses more trickery, and slippery lawyers bullshit to try and circumvent international law in his desperate efforts to paint Israel and its occupation of the Palestinians in a positive light.
This is unbelievably rich. In the same sentence you exalt international law and denigrate me for "slippery lawyers bullshit." Who do you think is responsible for developing international law? The analysis in the article I gave is, in my professional opinion (and here we're talking about my actual profession) a very thorough, reasonable, and I think convincing legal analysis. I'm sorry that it deprives you of a talking point. Deal with it.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
That second quote merely points to the inadequacies of the document itself in that when it was written it clearly envisioned some sort of immediate peace process and was never intended to address the reality as we find it today. It doesn't change the fact that 242 doesn't say what you says that it says.
Hilarious. Yosi now pretends that the legality of Resolutions changes over time. Contrary to your self-serving attempt to re-write U.N Resolutions as you see fit, these Resolutions do not change because of delays in their implementation.
If Yosi were to decide that 2+2 = 5, then we'd simply have to accept that 2+2 = 5.
I just object on principle to blatant misrepresentations regarding legal norms.
Yet you just posted an article containing many blatant misrepresentations regarding legal norms.
No hypocrisy there then.
Can you point me to a single misrepresentation of a legal norm in the article? And can you please support your contention with a legal source rather than a layman's opinion.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
As a law student, reading your comments, I can safely say that you didn't understand what she wrote. You've quite simply completely misunderstood and misrepresented her article.
None of those quotes contradict her analysis in the slightest.
Yes they do. They thoroughly contradict her 'analysis'.
It's incredible to me that you accuse others of arrogance and yet you presume to know more about international law than a highly regarded professor in the field. Really, you're just an astounding piece of work.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
This is unbelievably rich. In the same sentence you exalt international law and denigrate me for "slippery lawyers bullshit." Who do you think is responsible for developing international law? The analysis in the article I gave is, in my professional opinion (and here we're talking about my actual profession) a very thorough, reasonable, and I think convincing legal analysis. I'm sorry that it deprives you of a talking point. Deal with it.
'Deal with it'?
What's the matter Yosi? Feeling a little uptight?
For the record, I don't give a flying fuck about the fact that you've studied law. Tony Blair also studied law. Does that make all of his lies suddenly become truth? I think sometimes your arrogance blinds you to reality. I suggest you try climbing down from that mantle you've concocted for yourself.
That second quote merely points to the inadequacies of the document itself in that when it was written it clearly envisioned some sort of immediate peace process and was never intended to address the reality as we find it today. It doesn't change the fact that 242 doesn't say what you says that it says.
Hilarious. Yosi now pretends that the legality of Resolutions changes over time. Contrary to your self-serving attempt to re-write U.N Resolutions as you see fit, these Resolutions do not change because of delays in their implementation.
If Yosi were to decide that 2+2 = 5, then we'd simply have to accept that 2+2 = 5.
What's interesting about this is that you've completely reversed our positions. My point (really that of the article I posted) is that the resolution has a definite meaning that has remained constant. You are the one arguing that the meaning of the resolution should change based on the extended duration of the occupation.
Perhaps you'd like to take a deep breath and get your positions straight?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
It's incredible to me that you accuse others of arrogance and yet you presume to know more about international law than a highly regarded professor in the field. Really, you're just an astounding piece of work.
Except I didn't say that I know more about international law than this 'highly regarded' professor of yours. I simply focused on the particular article you've pounced on in your ongoing desperation to paint Israel's crimes in a positive light, and exposed a handful of it's falsehoods. And I don't need to go through every sentence in that article and deconstruct it with a fine-toothed comb. I've already demonstrated that the article is a piece of dishonest, self-serving trash.
What's interesting about this is that you've completely reversed our positions. My point (really that of the article I posted) is that the resolution has a definite meaning that has remained constant. You are the one arguing that the meaning of the resolution should change based on the extended duration of the occupation.
Perhaps you'd like to take a deep breath and get your positions straight?
My positions are already straight. I've already shown how this 'highly regarded' professor feels that the resolution is no longer legitimate, due to the passage of time.
"...in their negotiations the parties are not limited or restricted by the guidelines included in the resolution, which is, after all, forty-one years old, and cannot be expected to cover all the questions and alternatives current in 2009."
This is unbelievably rich. In the same sentence you exalt international law and denigrate me for "slippery lawyers bullshit." Who do you think is responsible for developing international law? The analysis in the article I gave is, in my professional opinion (and here we're talking about my actual profession) a very thorough, reasonable, and I think convincing legal analysis. I'm sorry that it deprives you of a talking point. Deal with it.
'Deal with it'?
What's the matter Yosi? Feeling a little uptight?
For the record, I don't give a flying fuck about the fact that you've studied law. Tony Blair also studied law. Does that make all of his lies suddenly become truth? I think sometimes your arrogance blinds you to reality. I suggest you try climbing down from that mantle you've concocted for yourself.
You know you're right. A rigorous legal education in no way makes someone a greater authority on law.
But here, since you are such a great legal mind. Resolution 242 calls for all parties to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries." If the Resolution simply calls for Israel to unilaterally withdraw to the 1949 armistice line, as you claim, can you explain how that reading doesn't render the above surplus verbiage? And can you explain the significance of the fact that the resolution calls for the withdrawal from "territories" rather than from "all the territories," as earlier rejected drafts of the resolution would have had it?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Interesting article here by the 'highly regarded' professor Ruth Lapidoth, in which she tries to claim that international humanitarian law doesn't apply to Palestinians under occupation.
Also, this person doesn't seem to think too highly of this 'highly regarded' professor that you appear to have so much respect for. He takes issue with her assertion that the blockade of Gaza is legal, and that the attack on the freedom flotilla was also legal, and her implication that 'international law is somehow irrelevant and inapplicable.'
In fact, to put it simply, this author demonstrates that she's actually full of shit:
It's incredible to me that you accuse others of arrogance and yet you presume to know more about international law than a highly regarded professor in the field. Really, you're just an astounding piece of work.
Except I didn't say that I know more about international law than this 'highly regarded' professor of yours. I simply focused on the particular article you've pounced on in your ongoing desperation to paint Israel's crimes in a positive light, and exposed a handful of it's falsehoods. And I don't need to go through every sentence in that article and deconstruct it with a fine-toothed comb. I've already demonstrated that the article is a piece of dishonest, self-serving trash.
You're really too much. This is just sad. You've demonstrated it? With what? Your say so? I'm sure there are rigorous legal analyses out there that come to different conclusions but you have yet to come up with one.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Interesting article here by the 'highly regarded' professor Ruth Lapidoth, in which she tries to claim that international humanitarian law doesn't apply to Palestinians under occupation.
Not surprising to see that she's a hero of yours, Yosi.
This is a pretty dense law journal note. Did you actually read all of this? If you did, can you point me to where she argues that international humanitarian law doesn't apply to Palestinians under occupation?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Resolution 242 calls for all parties to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries." If the Resolution simply calls for Israel to unilaterally withdraw to the 1949 armistice line, as you claim, can you explain how that reading doesn't render the above surplus verbiage?
The recognized boundaries being the 1967 boundaries. As for security, this subject was covered a couple of pages back in the Gideon Levy piece I posted. Did you not read it? You have a habit of only reading and seeing what you want to see. Have you watched that documentary 'Five Broken Cameras' yet? Nope. Yet you were quick to watch that silly Youtube clip posted by yesterday weren't you.
On the subject of withdrawal to the 1967 borders, and Israel's security, I think that Gideon levy makes a sound argument:
The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.
By Gideon Levy - Nov. 25, 2007
...Israel is not being asked "to give" anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity.
...Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is.
Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security. The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.
Also, this person doesn't seem to think too highly of this 'highly regarded' professor that you appear to have so much respect for. He takes issue with her assertion that the blockade of Gaza is legal, and that the attack on the freedom flotilla was also legal, and her implication that 'international law is somehow irrelevant and inapplicable.'
In fact, to put it simply, this author demonstrates that she's actually full of shit:
You're right. He doesn't appear to agree with her. And so...what exactly? Because some guy disagrees with her on a completely different issue her analysis here is wrong? As for my respect for her -- I really don't know the first thing about her. I respect her credentials and found one of her analyses to be well written and convincing. Let's not exaggerate (I know this will be hard for you, but give it a try).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And can you explain the significance of the fact that the resolution calls for the withdrawal from "territories" rather than from "all the territories," as earlier rejected drafts of the resolution would have had it?
Yeah, 'territories' means the territories Israel seized during and after the 1967 war. Those 'territories'. Nothing ambiguous abut that, unfortunately for you.
The World supports U.N 242 and a full and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the territories it seized during it's attack on Egypt and Syria in 1967. Why are you so opposed to it Yosi? Also, please remind me again why you feel that the Palestinians are responsible for being occupied. Thanks.
You're right. He doesn't appear to agree with her. And so...what exactly? Because some guy disagrees with her on a completely different issue her analysis here is wrong? As for my respect for her -- I really don't know the first thing about her. I respect her credentials and found one of her analyses to be well written and convincing. Let's not exaggerate (I know this will be hard for you, but give it a try).
No, it tells me that she has a habit of trying to dismiss international as and when it applies to Israel. She's just a shill. Another apologist for Israel's crimes. And I only needed to skim through a handful of her articles to work that out.
You don't know the first thing about her, and yet just now you were singing her praises, and portraying her word as being carved in stone. Funny that.
Interesting article here by the 'highly regarded' professor Ruth Lapidoth, in which she tries to claim that international humanitarian law doesn't apply to Palestinians under occupation.
Not surprising to see that she's a hero of yours, Yosi.
This is a pretty dense law journal note. Did you actually read all of this? If you did, can you point me to where she argues that international humanitarian law doesn't apply to Palestinians under occupation?
One example:
Page 3-4: 'The Controversy Over The Applicability of The Fourth Geneva Convention'.
Resolution 242 calls for all parties to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries." If the Resolution simply calls for Israel to unilaterally withdraw to the 1949 armistice line, as you claim, can you explain how that reading doesn't render the above surplus verbiage?
The recognized boundaries being the 1967 boundaries. As for security, this subject was covered a couple of pages back in the Gideon Levy piece I posted. Did you not read it? You have a habit of only reading and seeing what you want to see. Have you watched that documentary 'Five Broken Cameras' yet? Nope. Yet you were quick to watch that silly Youtube clip posted by yesterday weren't you.
On the subject of withdrawal to the 1967 borders, and Israel's security, I think that Gideon levy makes a sound argument:
The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.
By Gideon Levy - Nov. 25, 2007
...Israel is not being asked "to give" anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity.
...Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is.
Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security. The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.
You're simply making excuses Yosi.
I'm making excuses? How exactly? Pointing out that you are playing fast and loose with the truth is not the same as excusing the occupation.
See, you didn't understand my question (maybe because you never got a legal education...). The Resolution first calls for withdrawal from territories. Then it calls for the parties to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. If the first clause means that Israel must make an immediate and full withdrawal to the armistice lines then the second clause is rendered surplus. In other words, there would be no need to add a clause referencing secure and recognized boundaries since the question of where the lines should be drawn would have already been fully dealt with by the first clause. The convention is to read legal documents to avoid surplus (on the presumption that they are drafted with an economy of phrase). Thus, the absence of a modifier ("all" or "the") before territories in the preamble clause in conjunction with the call for a peace agreement that would provide for secure and recognized boundaries (what those boundaries are is left ambiguous in the text) suggests that the resolution is calling generally for a withdrawal of forces based on a peace agreement that will set a permanent border agreed upon by the parties that may depart from the '49 armistice line.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Why dnt we let Israel write it's own resolution? I mean, they basically dnt follow anybody else's resolutions. Nor any laws for that matter. They (aipac) basically tell our fucktard congressman/woman how to vote. Dnt believe me, go read They Dare to Speak Out. Nice book on aipac and how they work.
See, you didn't understand my question (maybe because you never got a legal education...). The Resolution first calls for withdrawal from territories. Then it calls for the parties to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. If the first clause means that Israel must make an immediate and full withdrawal to the armistice lines then the second clause is rendered surplus. In other words, there would be no need to add a clause referencing secure and recognized boundaries since the question of where the lines should be drawn would have already been fully dealt with by the first clause. The convention is to read legal documents to avoid surplus (on the presumption that they are drafted with an economy of phrase). Thus, the absence of a modifier ("all" or "the") before territories in the preamble clause in conjunction with the call for a peace agreement that would provide for secure and recognized boundaries (what those boundaries are is left ambiguous in the text) suggests that the resolution is calling generally for a withdrawal of forces based on a peace agreement that will set a permanent border agreed upon by the parties that may depart from the '49 armistice line.
i understood your question perfectly well (despite my lack of a legal education. Imagine that?!) which is why I already addressed it above. The preamble states the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. If no agreement is reached, then the occupier must withdraw to the status quo line - the internationally recognized borders. After 45 years, no agreement has been reached, largely as a result of Israeli expansionism and rejection of what it's entitled to under international law. This doesn't mean that the Israeli's are therefore entitled to continue occupying the land unlawfully.
"The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant."
Interesting article here by the 'highly regarded' professor Ruth Lapidoth, in which she tries to claim that international humanitarian law doesn't apply to Palestinians under occupation.
Not surprising to see that she's a hero of yours, Yosi.
This is a pretty dense law journal note. Did you actually read all of this? If you did, can you point me to where she argues that international humanitarian law doesn't apply to Palestinians under occupation?
One example:
Page 3-4: 'The Controversy Over The Applicability of The Fourth Geneva Convention'.
Also, you can scroll down to the conclusion.
So I'll ask you again, did you actually read this? And if you did, did you understand any of it? Because as far as I can tell this is just a pretty dry piece discussing competing legal analyses. She does note that the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't technically apply to the occupied territories, but then she immediately notes that the Court is regularly guided by the convention anyways. So your claim that she's making an affirmative argument that all international humanitarian law doesn't apply to Palestinians under occupation seems to be pretty wildly off base.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
See, you didn't understand my question (maybe because you never got a legal education...). The Resolution first calls for withdrawal from territories. Then it calls for the parties to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. If the first clause means that Israel must make an immediate and full withdrawal to the armistice lines then the second clause is rendered surplus. In other words, there would be no need to add a clause referencing secure and recognized boundaries since the question of where the lines should be drawn would have already been fully dealt with by the first clause. The convention is to read legal documents to avoid surplus (on the presumption that they are drafted with an economy of phrase). Thus, the absence of a modifier ("all" or "the") before territories in the preamble clause in conjunction with the call for a peace agreement that would provide for secure and recognized boundaries (what those boundaries are is left ambiguous in the text) suggests that the resolution is calling generally for a withdrawal of forces based on a peace agreement that will set a permanent border agreed upon by the parties that may depart from the '49 armistice line.
i understood your question perfectly well (despite my lack of a legal education. Imagine that?!) which is why I already addressed it above. The preamble states the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. If no agreement is reached, then the occupier must withdraw to the status quo line - the internationally recognized borders. After 45 years, no agreement has been reached, largely as a result of Israeli expansionism and rejection of what it's entitled to under international law. This doesn't mean that the Israeli's are therefore entitled to continue occupying the land unlawfully.
"The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant."
You're just making excuses.
You're reading into the document. Where in the text does the Resolution impose the durational requirement you've suggested? The document calls for a withdrawal pursuant to a negotiated peace. It's certainly deplorable that that hasn't yet occurred, but that non-occurrence doesn't transform the meaning of the document such that it suddenly calls for an immediate and unilateral withdrawal.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
See, you didn't understand my question (maybe because you never got a legal education...). The Resolution first calls for withdrawal from territories. Then it calls for the parties to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. If the first clause means that Israel must make an immediate and full withdrawal to the armistice lines then the second clause is rendered surplus. In other words, there would be no need to add a clause referencing secure and recognized boundaries since the question of where the lines should be drawn would have already been fully dealt with by the first clause. The convention is to read legal documents to avoid surplus (on the presumption that they are drafted with an economy of phrase). Thus, the absence of a modifier ("all" or "the") before territories in the preamble clause in conjunction with the call for a peace agreement that would provide for secure and recognized boundaries (what those boundaries are is left ambiguous in the text) suggests that the resolution is calling generally for a withdrawal of forces based on a peace agreement that will set a permanent border agreed upon by the parties that may depart from the '49 armistice line.
The 1967 line was regarded as the biggest compromise the Palestinians could be expected to accept. It was seen as the very least the Israeli's could agree to. But no. For the Israeli's withdrawal to a temporary border beyond even that of the 1949 Armistice line was regarded as a huge concession, despite the fact that Israel enlarged it's territory by over 50% during and after the 1948 war. And even today Israel's apologists are arguing over the meaning of U.N 242, as if that Resolution is ambiguous and entitles them to continue the occupation, and even to seize even more Palestinian territory.
And Yosi pretends to be the voice of reason. Sorry, but I have to disagree. I see nothing reasonable in trying desperately, page after page, in trying to excuse and justify land theft, and ethnic cleansing.
You're reading into the document. Where in the text does the Resolution impose the durational requirement you've suggested? The document calls for a withdrawal pursuant to a negotiated peace. It's certainly deplorable that that hasn't yet occurred, but that non-occurrence doesn't transform the meaning of the document such that it suddenly calls for an immediate and unilateral withdrawal.
it's illegal to acquire territory by war. if it's illegal to acquire territory by war, then the legal option is to withdraw from that illegally occupied territory. Pretty simple really.
As for a negotiated peace, Israel has shown it has no interest in a negotiated peace, but is only interested in stealing more land. Therefore, that part of the Resolution should not enable Israel to maintain it's illegal occupation.
By the way Yosi, the whole World supports U.N 242. Just one country opposes it and blocks it's implementation every year. Why do you think that is?
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.”
Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine - A/RES/68/15 Vote: 165 Yes, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)
So we have 165 countries on one side calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms of U.N Resolution 242, and 6 countries - including Israel and the U.S - on the other, opposing a peaceful settlement, and lending their support for the ongoing hostilities, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Dude, the fact that I recognize that Resolution 242 doesn't require an immediate and complete withdrawal from the occupied territories doesn't mean that I don't think such a withdrawal should take place. I would be overjoyed if it occurred tomorrow. The only reason we're having this argument is because you insist on using 242 as a moral bludgeon, and mis-characterize its meaning in the process. And at this point I can't just let your nonsense go (much as I know that I should).
Here's a bit from the relevant wiki article that I think pretty well sums up my read on 242 and related issues:
Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:
It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[24]
Lord Caradon also maintained,
We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.[75]
During a symposium on the subject Lord Caradon said that Israel was in clear defiance of resolution 242. He specifically cited the "annexation of East Jerusalem" and "the creeping colonialism on the West Bank and in Gaza and in the Golan."
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Can we get back to trying to have a constructive conversation about how people can help work towards a viable solution? Please? That was really much more uplifting and interesting for the hot second that it lasted.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Byrnzie, let me ask you a question, and here I am not trying to bait you, if the occupation were to end tomorrow do you think the Palestinians would be better off under Abbas or under Hamas?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
So I'll ask you again, did you actually read this? And if you did, did you understand any of it? Because as far as I can tell this is just a pretty dry piece discussing competing legal analyses. She does note that the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't technically apply to the occupied territories, but then she immediately notes that the Court is regularly guided by the convention anyways. So your claim that she's making an affirmative argument that all international humanitarian law doesn't apply to Palestinians under occupation seems to be pretty wildly off base.
Yeah, I read it. It reminds me of the Wannsee Conference where the Nazis calmly and calculatedly decided the fate of the Jews under their administration.
'Although the Court has formally refused to implement Article 49 and has limited its meaning to mass deportations, the power of the Military Commander to expel or deport is certainly not unlimited, and its exercise is subject to review by the Court, which will scrutinize each case carefully : it will verify the reasonableness of the order and its legitimacy under Israeli administrative law (which includes the principles of natural justice) and international customary rules. Moreover, the mere existence of the Court’s review power constitutes a powerful incentive for the military authorities to reduce the cases of expulsion as far as possible.'
Comments
If Yosi were to decide that 2+2 = 5, then we'd simply have to accept that 2+2 = 5.
What's the matter Yosi? Feeling a little uptight?
For the record, I don't give a flying fuck about the fact that you've studied law. Tony Blair also studied law. Does that make all of his lies suddenly become truth?
I think sometimes your arrogance blinds you to reality. I suggest you try climbing down from that mantle you've concocted for yourself.
Perhaps you'd like to take a deep breath and get your positions straight?
And I don't need to go through every sentence in that article and deconstruct it with a fine-toothed comb. I've already demonstrated that the article is a piece of dishonest, self-serving trash.
"...in their negotiations the parties are not limited or restricted by the guidelines included in the resolution, which is, after all, forty-one years old, and cannot be expected to cover all the questions and alternatives current in 2009."
Keep reaching. You're doing a splendid job.
But here, since you are such a great legal mind. Resolution 242 calls for all parties to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries." If the Resolution simply calls for Israel to unilaterally withdraw to the 1949 armistice line, as you claim, can you explain how that reading doesn't render the above surplus verbiage? And can you explain the significance of the fact that the resolution calls for the withdrawal from "territories" rather than from "all the territories," as earlier rejected drafts of the resolution would have had it?
http://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol2/No1/art5.pdf
Not surprising to see that she's a hero of yours, Yosi.
In fact, to put it simply, this author demonstrates that she's actually full of shit:
http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/07/20/the-illegality-of-israels-naval-blockade-of-gaza/
On the subject of withdrawal to the 1967 borders, and Israel's security, I think that Gideon levy makes a sound argument:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/demands-of-a-thief-1.233907
Demands of a thief
The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.
By Gideon Levy - Nov. 25, 2007
...Israel is not being asked "to give" anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity.
...Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is.
Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security. The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.
You're simply making excuses Yosi.
The World supports U.N 242 and a full and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the territories it seized during it's attack on Egypt and Syria in 1967. Why are you so opposed to it Yosi?
Also, please remind me again why you feel that the Palestinians are responsible for being occupied. Thanks.
You don't know the first thing about her, and yet just now you were singing her praises, and portraying her word as being carved in stone. Funny that.
Page 3-4: 'The Controversy Over The Applicability of The Fourth Geneva Convention'.
Also, you can scroll down to the conclusion.
See, you didn't understand my question (maybe because you never got a legal education...). The Resolution first calls for withdrawal from territories. Then it calls for the parties to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. If the first clause means that Israel must make an immediate and full withdrawal to the armistice lines then the second clause is rendered surplus. In other words, there would be no need to add a clause referencing secure and recognized boundaries since the question of where the lines should be drawn would have already been fully dealt with by the first clause. The convention is to read legal documents to avoid surplus (on the presumption that they are drafted with an economy of phrase). Thus, the absence of a modifier ("all" or "the") before territories in the preamble clause in conjunction with the call for a peace agreement that would provide for secure and recognized boundaries (what those boundaries are is left ambiguous in the text) suggests that the resolution is calling generally for a withdrawal of forces based on a peace agreement that will set a permanent border agreed upon by the parties that may depart from the '49 armistice line.
"The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant."
You're just making excuses.
The 1967 line was regarded as the biggest compromise the Palestinians could be expected to accept. It was seen as the very least the Israeli's could agree to. But no. For the Israeli's withdrawal to a temporary border beyond even that of the 1949 Armistice line was regarded as a huge concession, despite the fact that Israel enlarged it's territory by over 50% during and after the 1948 war.
And even today Israel's apologists are arguing over the meaning of U.N 242, as if that Resolution is ambiguous and entitles them to continue the occupation, and even to seize even more Palestinian territory.
And Yosi pretends to be the voice of reason. Sorry, but I have to disagree. I see nothing reasonable in trying desperately, page after page, in trying to excuse and justify land theft, and ethnic cleansing.
Pretty simple really.
As for a negotiated peace, Israel has shown it has no interest in a negotiated peace, but is only interested in stealing more land. Therefore, that part of the Resolution should not enable Israel to maintain it's illegal occupation.
By the way Yosi, the whole World supports U.N 242. Just one country opposes it and blocks it's implementation every year. Why do you think that is?
Last year:
https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/ga11460.doc.htm
Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine - A/RES/68/15
Vote: 165 Yes, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)
So we have 165 countries on one side calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms of U.N Resolution 242, and 6 countries - including Israel and the U.S - on the other, opposing a peaceful settlement, and lending their support for the ongoing hostilities, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Here's a bit from the relevant wiki article that I think pretty well sums up my read on 242 and related issues:
Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:
It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[24]
Lord Caradon also maintained,
We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.[75]
During a symposium on the subject Lord Caradon said that Israel was in clear defiance of resolution 242. He specifically cited the "annexation of East Jerusalem" and "the creeping colonialism on the West Bank and in Gaza and in the Golan."
'Although the Court has formally refused to implement Article 49 and has limited its meaning to mass deportations, the power of the Military Commander to expel or deport is certainly not unlimited, and its exercise is subject to review by the Court, which will scrutinize each case carefully : it will verify the reasonableness of the order and its legitimacy under Israeli administrative law (which includes the principles of natural justice) and international customary rules. Moreover, the mere existence of the Court’s review power constitutes a powerful incentive for the military authorities to reduce the cases of expulsion as far as possible.'