response 32 of 70:

Dec 25 13:01 UTC 2003

That applies during war, right?  And it holds true for the
Palestinians too, right?

Israel will never let this case go to court in a public
way.  Never.

response 34 of 70:

Dec 26 15:35 UTC 2003

re:  "#32 (mary): . . . And it holds true for the Palestinians too, 
right?"

We suppose so - were they to have a "military," which, of course, 
under the terms of prior agreements they have signed, they do not.

response 36 of 70:

Dec 26 18:29 UTC 2003

The Geneva Conventions do apply to conflicts within a country (not of an
international scope) so, as HRW & AI have concluded, the PA and the terrorist
groups are in violation of international law (and also the 1998 Convention
for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.)

The problem I have (and why many Jews suspect that anti-semitism is involved)
is that people who wrap themselves in international law selectively choose
to criticize Israel, and only Israel, for potentially minor violations -- while
giving a free pass to egregious violations by Arabs (and the rest of the
world). The Geneva Committee has convened twice in the past 54 years since
it was formed, both times to scrutinize Israel (while attrocities in Iraq,
Uganda, Yugoslavia, Central America, Cambodia, Rwanda... the list is long,
have passed in shameful silence).

This is perhaps the corrolary to what the Malaysian PM claimed, that Jews
invented Human Rights (etc) so they could (unjustifiably) benefit from them.
One could almost conclude that international laws were invented to be
applied only to the Jewish state....

All of which isn't to say that two wrongs make a right. The point is that
even if there is a 2nd wrong, it is of a totally different magnitude than
the other wrongs which are ignored.


As for the question if Israel will let the case of the refuseniks get
to the courts:

Upon further reflection, the soldiers are not refusing specific orders
(which in theory could be illegal). They are (blanket) refusing to
serve in the disputed territories -- despite the legal status of
Israel's administration (just reconfirmed by the UN, which rejected
the PA's claim that it, and not Israel, represent the people) and
which was established by UN Security Council Resolution 242 (which in
1967 authorized Israel to hold the territories until final borders are
determined through negotiations -- which for decades the Arabs refused
to enter into, the Arab League even expelling Egypt in the late 1970s
for participating in President Carter's Camp David Accords).

response 38 of 70:

Dec 26 20:51 UTC 2003

The very first google hit for illegal Israeli settlements brings up 
this BBC site quoting an Israeli defense minister not having any 
qualms about the terminology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2066892.stm

response 40 of 70:

Dec 27 05:54 UTC 2003

Mary, did you read that BBC article? If you had, you'd have read that the
minister was against *unauthorized* settlements. Wildcat "settlements",
if you will. These settlements are illegal under *Israeli law*.  (Just as
we can't pitch tents in the Arb and call it Grexistan.)

This does not speak to ALL Jewish villages in the disputed territories
being illegal under *international law*.

Notice how I cited and quoted international law regarding the legal status
of Israel's actions?  Can you do the same to show that "settlements" are
illegal?  [Hint: don't ignore Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.]

Furthermore, if it is true that these "settlements" are illegal, why have
the Arab states pursued this, for decades, in POLITICAL forums such as the
UN rather than in LEGAL forums such as the International Court of Justice?

The legal argument is such a longshot that the Arabs have not been willing
to risk it in a court of law. If they lose, that would silence their claim
(and all the propaganda) and end their political efforts.


Any thoughts about the hypocritical invocations of international law
in this theater?  (See #36)

Talking of hypocrisy, and assuming that you support the so-called "right
of return" (for Arabs into Israel), how could it be "illegal" for Jews
to return to Judea?!

response 42 of 70:

Dec 27 18:58 UTC 2003

So in other words, you have no legal information to support the claim
that the "settlements" are "illegal". And this is exactly why the Arabs
don't need to take this to court. Their political propaganda has been
so effective that it has managed to try Israel in the world of public
opinion and have it found guilty -- regardless of what the law says.

(There is no such thing as a UN zoning board. The UN recognizes that
Israel is the proper and legal sovereign over the disputed territories.)

Reminds me of Ralphs' story of Rev. Smith, a holy roller who came to
Detroit years ago. After working the crowd and telling them that he
could walk on water, he asked them (a couple of times) if they believed
he could walk on water. The resounding answer came as "yes!". And he
said, "so I don't have to walk on the water" and he passed the hat....


I'm also not sure your rendition of history is correct. Yes, the US
recognized Israel when it declared independence (in accordance with
UNGAR 181), but did little to help Israel (as did the UN and the
rest of the world) when it was illegally attacked by the surrounding
Arab states. Instead an arms embargo was placed, meaning that the
Arab states had a decided advantage (with standing armies, such as
the British trained and led Arab Legion in Trans-Jordan) and with
Israel scrambling to raise an army with equipment from Czechoslovakia.
Later, France would become Israel's major weapons supplier.

In 1956, the US firmly opposed the joint British-French-Israel war
against Egypt to open the Suez Canal -- which Egypt had just nationalized
and in contravention of International Law closed this international
waterway to Israeli shipping.

During the first 20 years of the conflict (through 1967), Israel received
a total of $1.2 Billion in US aid of which only $137 Million was in the
form of military loans. The rest was evenly split between economic grants
and loans.

Through 1973, US aid to Israel was a sum total of $3.2 Billion. Of this,
$1.4 Billion was in military loans (the bulk of which came after the 1967
war).  The balance was roughly equally split between economic loans and
grants. Note that this is an average of about $120 Million per year.
Are you saying that this made the Arabs hate the US?

During these 26 years, the US had also given aid to Iraq (up until the
semi-democratic regime was overthrown by the Baath party in the late
1950s. No, the rumor that the US installed Saddam is utterly false.)
And to Egypt (and probably some of the smaller Arab states; I don't know).

Nonetheless, anti-US sentiment was high in the Arab world even then.
During riots in Cairo in 1964 (65?), US food aid sent to Egypt was tossed
into the Nile (while people starved). Soon thereafter Nasser turned away
from the US and to the USSR.

Forgive me if I don't agree with you that it was the historic US aid to
Israel that induced the oil embargo.

And if I disagree that the US chose to be friends with Israel instead of
with the Arab world. The US attempted both but was told by the Arab states
that it had to pick. This was consistent with the (illegal) Arab embargo
against Israel. Companies also had to pick. They could have a market of
about 3 million people in Israel, or of the 200 million people in the
Arab world. They could not do business in both.

So I don't agree that the US turned its back on the Arab world, the exact
opposite happened: Egypt had become a Soviet client, as had Iraq, Syria,
Libya and others.  Why? Because the USSR gave them arms.  Arms to make
war against Israel.

With the exception of Lebanon, no Arab state had anything resembling a
democratic system. Many had frequent changes at the top as one strongman
assassinated and took the place of his predecessor.  Are you suggesting
that the US should have supported these ruthless dictators?


Through the first 20 years, there was no "Palestinian Cause" for anyone
to turn their back on. Today's disputed territories sat in Arab hands,
yet there was no call to create a "Palestinian" state therein. The war
cry, as before, was to "throw the Jews into the sea".  Egypt ruled in
Gaza, Judea and Samaria were "unified" with eastern Palestine (until
then known as Trans-Jordan, Palestine across the Jordan river) and
became known as the "West Bank" of Jordan (ironically, the part of
Palestine east of the Jordan which was west of the Jordan river).

None of which prevented Arab aggression against Israel in 1967 and 1973.
Nor Arab terrorism such as the murder of Olympic athletes in 1972 and
numerous airplane hijackings.

Only in 1974, after the oil embargo, did Israel receive its first military
grant from the US.  Most of this was to rebuild its defense forces which
were ravaged during the 1973 war (Egypt alone had more soldiers than the
entire population of Israel, and Sadat had stated that he was willing to
sacrifice 1 million of them to destroy Israel).

In 1975, total US aid to Israel would drop to $823 Million.

Following Pres. Carter's Camp David agreement, aid to Israel would increase,
but Egypt would also receive about the same.  (Perhaps if other Arab
countries had been interested in peace and joined, they also would have
been the recipients of US aid, as Jordan would be years later).

Sorry, Mary, but the facts indicate you've reversed the causality of the
situation.  You have made many unwarranted assumptions about what happened
25-50 years ago based on the situation today, as if there is only one way
we could have gotten here -- based on other assumptions you are making.
You need to read history forward, in the order it happened, rather than
write it backward.

response 44 of 70:

Dec 27 23:14 UTC 2003

Send the Palestinians more money?  We might as well just wire it to 
Yasser's bank account.

Upon what basis are Israeli settlements "illegal?"  (A question which 
nobody seems to be able to answer.)

And (most unfortunately for Ms. mary) nowhere in her source is the 
official quoted as saying "illegal."  ("Nice try, but no cigar.)

response 46 of 70:

Dec 28 00:07 UTC 2003

Light, please.

response 48 of 70:

Dec 28 04:37 UTC 2003

I think the 'lefties' are mostly opposing funding other people's wars.  
That's a lot less hypocritical-sounding than how you prefer to spin it.

response 50 of 70:

Dec 29 01:26 UTC 2003

Mary (and David), please reread my #42 and see if you can provide a more
thorough response to what I said. Not just about the distinction between
outposts which are illegal under Israeli law and "settlements" which are
allegedly illegal under an international law that no one can find.  (If
others said the earth was flat would you also blindly believe them? If
a former Israeli minister of defense said that the world is flat in some
places would you also misconstrue this to mean that he said the earth
is flat?)

And that was but my first paragraph.  Can you explain why the US was
hated by tyrannical Arab regimes who turned their backs on America
long before the US provided Israel with more than a token amount of
primarily economic aid?  Complete figures are provided in #42.

I'm also awaiting a response to my comments in #40:

| Any thoughts about the hypocritical invocations of international law
| in this theater?  (See #36)

| Talking of hypocrisy, and assuming that you support the so-called "right
| of return" (for Arabs into Israel), how could it be "illegal" for Jews
| to return to Judea?!

Can it really be the case that international law requires that Arabs
"return" to Israel but simultaneously prohibits Jews from returning to
where they lived prior to the illegal 1948 Arab invasion which ethnically
cleansed ALL Jews from Judea, Samaria and Gaza?

response 52 of 70:

Dec 29 03:36 UTC 2003

Mr. gull-
Do you contend that the removal of Mr. Arafat would "only make things 
worse" in terms of the Israel/PLO situation or in terms of the global 
Arab/Israel relationship?  And, how much "worse?"
Thank you.

response 54 of 70:

Dec 29 05:04 UTC 2003

(First time I've _noticed_ you admitting some of the settlements are legal,
Mary.)

response 56 of 70:

Dec 29 15:00 UTC 2003

Re resp:52: I think if Israel is seen as forcing Arafat out it will only
generate more anger against them and ensure Arafat's replacement will be
even worse.  I'm not saying removing Arafat is bad in priciple, but that
the political realities of it make it a bad idea.

Re resp:55:
> But the compromise will be based on
> those parameters as they were discussed in 2000.

I doubt it, simply because by that time the wall will be complete and
will have defined the new Israeli border in a very non-negotiable way.