response 26 of 69:

Jun 27 18:00 UTC 2002

Re #25: The main reason Israel's fence is controversial is that there's not
much agreement on exactly where Israel's border should be.

response 28 of 69:

Jun 28 03:49 UTC 2002

What if everybody  on the Israeli side doesn't want to be?

response 30 of 69:

Jul 1 20:34 UTC 2002

re #28 alright, how about as long as everyone on the Israeli side is 
given the opportunity to become an Israeli citizen with the obvious 
exceptions of tourists, foreign journalists, diplomats, etc?

re#29 Please dont put words into my mouth. I never even so much as 
implied that. 

response 32 of 69:

Jul 7 20:44 UTC 2002

Sure, those people should not be forced out of their homes. But I dont 
believe it is ok for the settlements to be under Israeli control. For 
example, I think it is ok for Jews to live in Ypsilanti but I dont 
think it would be ok for Israel to claim any land that Jewish people 
happen to live on in Ypsilanti as being part of Israel. 

And yes, I realize that at this point the safety of any Jews who would 
choose to remain in Hebron or Judea or wherever is an issue. I dont 
think it is something that cant be dealt with however. 

I have to say though that even if safety werent an issue, I doubt many 
Jewish people would want to remain in a Palestinian state in the West 
Bank or Gaza simply because of economic concerns and a lack of 
infrastructure. That is unfortunate because they are generally pretty 
affluent and could do a lot to improve the situation there. 

response 34 of 69:

Jul 8 18:36 UTC 2002

Look, if Israel wants to annex those territories, that is fine with me 
but if they are going to do it, they need to make everyone living there 
a citizen of Israel or else they are, imho, oppressing those people. It 
wouldnt be the first time a nation has gained territory during a war. 
But then one has to think about if the territory is worth it. The 
Palestinians are there and since Israel doesnt want to extend 
citizenship to them (for reasons that I actually do understand, btw), 
the only other decent option is to cede the land to them as a 
Palestinian state. 


Personally, I think Israel should cede most of the territories to the 
Palestinians including many of the settlements. It is not practical for 
Israel to maintain access roads and security to small islands in these 
territories. If I were an Israeli, I would probably be active in 
advocating that view because it would seriously bug me that so much of 
my nation's resources were used up in that way. 

response 36 of 69:

Jul 8 21:38 UTC 2002

I know all of that. We have had this exact same discussion before. 

response 38 of 69:

Jul 9 13:24 UTC 2002

I know you know that. It just seems that you sometimes want to forget it
and make statements such as "if only Israel would..." -- while ignoring
that Israel has largely been doing what you suggest for 50+ years.
[I think it stems from misperceptions which are discussed in Summer item 19.]

Scott, the "outposts" that the Israeli government is dismantling are "illegal"
because they are on state lands and were not approved by the state. They
would have the same status on either side of the green line.

response 40 of 69:

Jul 9 22:42 UTC 2002

Re 38:  You're assuming that the "state land" is in fact legitimately owned
by the state of Israel.

response 42 of 69:

Jul 10 14:01 UTC 2002

David, if for once you thought about what you were saying before typing
every anti-Israel thought that occurred to you, you'd see that there's
nothing unusual in this "dichotomy". Or do you believe that the State of
Michigan would react the same if one were to build a house on the Diag and
park a trailer on state land in the middle of no-where up north?

That if terrorists attacked the trailer the State Police wouldn't protect
the people there because they don't have a permit to park the trailer?
(Even while they're demolishing the house on the Diag...?)

The land policy (which, incidentally, many people already falsely allege
is already the case) is politics. Suggested by a small party that is part
of the coalition, it was heard. There's no way it will pass into law.


Scott, who do you suggest is the proper sovereign? Please back this up with
quotes from legal scholars.  Oh, why bother, as if Scott can ever discuss
issues beyond the propaganda he reads on electricintifadah.com.  Rather than
enter meta-discussion, let me share with you what Prof. Julius Stone (a highly
regarded authority on international law) wrote.

        Israel's territorial rights after 1967 are best seen by contrasting
        them with Jordan's lack of such rights in Jerusalem and the West Bank
        after the Arab invasion of Palestine in 1948. The presence of Jordan
        in Jerusalem and elsewhere in cis-Jordan from 1948 to 1967 was only
        by virtue of her illegal entry in 1948. Under the international law
        principle ex iniuria non oritur ius she acquired no legal title there.
        Egypt itself denied Jordanian Sovereignty; and Egypt never tried to
        claim Gaza as Egyptian territory. [This was written before Jordan
        relinquished its claims to the West bank.] 

        ...International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not
        where, as in the case of Israel's self-defence in 1967, the entry on
        the territory was lawful. It does not so forbid it, in particular,
        when the force is used to stop an aggressor, for the effect of such
        prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that,
        even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt
        would be automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd
        to the point of lunacy. There is no such rule. 

        International law, therefore, gives a triple underpinning to Israel's
        claim that she is under no obligation to hand back automatically the
        West Bank and Gaza to Jordan or anyone else. In the first place, these
        lands never legally belonged to Jordan. Second, even if they had,
        Israel's own present control is lawful, and she is entitled to
        negotiate the extent and the terms of her withdrawal. Third,
        international law would not in such circumstances require the
        automatic handing back of territory even to an aggressor who was the
        former sovereign. It requires the extent and conditions of the handing
        back to be negotiated between the parties.

To state the obvious, that is what the Oslo Process (by which Israel ceded
control of 42% of the territories to the PA and offered 100%+95%+2% at Taba)
was all about.

Here's what Prof. Sir Elihu Lauterpacht C.B.E., Q.C., (Honorary Professor of
International Law, University of Cambridge, Member of the Institut de Droit
International) wrote:

        Territorial change cannot properly take place as the result of
        unlawful use of force. But to omit the word unlawful is to change the
        substantive content of the rule and turn an important safeguard of
        legal principle into an agressors' charter. For if force can never
        be used to effect lawful territorial change, then if territory has
        once changed hands as a result of the use of unlawful use of force,
        the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by
        the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign.
        This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.

And now let's hear from the Honorary Stephen Schwebel (two-term President of
the International Court of Justice):

        Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory
        unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the
        lawful exercise of self-defence has, against that prior holder, better
        title.

response 44 of 69:

Jul 11 14:03 UTC 2002

I know you really want to believe that so that you would finally have
some justification for thinking of Israel as you do, but do you really
believe your own arguments?  Are you confidant enough to put your money
where your mouth is? How about a wager of a $50 donation to Grex to be
made by the loser?

response 46 of 69:

Jul 12 15:28 UTC 2002

I guess that settles that.  You'll make your anti-Israel statements but
don't yourself believe them enough to place a bet that would benefit Grex.

I forgot to respond to the first part of #43: The IDF didn't build a fence
nor post armed guards for these outposts (some of which didn't even exist
on the ground). It may have increased regular patrols, but I suspect that
the MI State Police would do the same if there were such a threat (and
perhaps while eviction proceedings were being held).

Scott, any questions regarding #42?

response 48 of 69:

Jul 12 19:25 UTC 2002

Re #46: I just don't have $50 I want to risk right now.  I don't place bets
on what the U.S. government does, either.  Besides, you'd find some semantic
excuse to claim I was wrong no matter what the outcome, like you always do.