Secret memo: Israel knew settlements were illegal

[muriel_volestrangler]

A secret memo proves that the Israeli government knew that its occupation of Palestinian land was illegal after it won the Six Day War in 1967, a British newspaper reported Saturday.

Theodor Meron, who wrote the memo as the Israeli foreign ministry's legal advisor at the time, said "I believe I would have given the same opinion today," according to The Independent newspaper.

With Israel now celebrating the 40th anniversary of the war, the 76-year-old Meron, who went on to become a leading international jurist, challenges Israel's long-held argument that settlements do not violate international law.
...
Quoting its author, the newspaper said the memo concluded "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20848

The Independent front page story: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2584164.ece

And a long article which includes more of what Meron said: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2582180.ece

I agree with the opinion and article - the settlements are the fundamental problem stopping a solution.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Bzzzzzttttttt...wrong answer. Israel's existence was menaced in 1967...BEFORE the settlements.

So the talking point that the settlements cause all the unrest is just a buncha shit.

[Lurking Dem]

2. Hell, it was menaced in 1920

before there was an Israel. (Nabi Musa)

[msmcghee]

3. You know what they say about opinions and assholes.

Actually it is a pretty funny story. As if Israeli leadership had only listened to this guys wise advice there would have been no occupation, no Intifada I and II - and the Palestinian Arabs would be living in peace and prosperity today.

Well, actually they would probably be shooting rockets into Tel Aviv and Haifa and would have destroyed Israel's economy - but that's OK - they can't help themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Yeah, and that post is a great example of it :) n/t

[papau]

4. the settlements are the fundamental problem and a waste of money - but in the

Geneva/Taba construct there is a land trade so as to keep only the settlements nearest the border with the most population within Israel.

Some very large Israeli settlement towns will go over to Palestinian control.

And I agree as to the posters thought that the settlements are not the cause of all the fighting - and that doing things differently post 73 would have not have changed much.

But when peace is finally put on the table (with compensation for but no physical right of return), the settlements outside of the land swap will have to become Palestinian territory.

[msmcghee]

6. I'm not completely disagreeing with you . .

. . but, a credible argument can be made that the "fundamental problem" is the existence of the Jewish state of Israel.

If there were no settlements I'm sure that the Palestinians' enablers and apologists in the west would be telling us that the temple mount or the perceived unequal treatment of Israeli Arabs in Israel or the Shaaba farms or the Golan Heights or access to the water table or the border crossings (wherever they are located) and the humiliation Arabs endure to go through them or - whatever - is the "fundamental problem" that requires suicide bombs and rockets be fired at Israeli civilians.

I say "the Palestinians' enablers and apologist in the west" because the Palestinians themselves are far more up front about it. The political statements and speeches they make to each other, what they teach their children in school regarding Jews and "Palestine" and the existence of Israel, their favorite TV shows that perpetuate the blood libel and the Elders of Zion - no matter how un-PC it is to discuss those things in polite company.

Again, you have a point, but have you read the Hamas Charter?

The Covenant of Hamas

The 1988 Hamas Covenant (or Charter) states that the organization's goal is to "raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine," in order to establish an Islamic Republic.

The thirty-six articles of the Covenant detail the movement's Islamist beliefs regarding the primacy of Islam in all aspects of life. The Covenant identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and considers its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." Hamas describes resisting and quelling the enemy as the individual duty of every Muslim and prescribes revolutionary roles for all members of society; including men and women, professionals, scientists and students.

The slogan of Hamas is "God is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur'an its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of God is the loftiest of its wishes." Hamas states that its objective is to support the oppressed and wronged and "to bring about justice and defeat injustice, in word and deed." Hamas believes that "the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (trust) consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day," and as such, the land cannot be negotiated away by any political leader. Hamas rejects "so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences" as incapable of realizing justice or restoring rights to the oppressed, believing "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#The_Covenant_of_Hamas

[papau]

7. Hamas does see the problem as the existence of Jews and Israel - but

God willing they will change or be voted out, and peace will again be put on the table, and at that point the settlements (most of them) will be on Palestinian land.

The dismantling should begin now - the settlers must understand they will leave so peace can happen.

There is no reason to keep "bargaining" chips that only lose blood and treasure for no good reason.

[msmcghee]

20. In 1967 there were no settlements, no IDF checkpoints, . .

. . and there was no wall. Israel did not occupy any part of the West Bank or Gaza - which were then "occupied" by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Israel was attacked by several Arab armies including Jordan's and Egypt's in an attempt to destroy the state of Israel. Israel won that war and pushed Jordan and Egypt out of those territories.

It makes no difference whether Hamas is running things there now or some other group. As long as a significant number of Palestinians support (or at least do not oppose) efforts by armed militants to carry on the jihad against Israel - then Israel is justified in occupying that land in order to defend itself.

All the legal opinions in the UN don't mean a thing if the UN is not ready to militarily push Israel out of the WB. Facts on the ground - Israel's need to defend the lives of its citizens - necessarily trumps the legal opinions of those who don't give a shit about Israeli lives.

I suggest they focus their hot air on the daily serious violations of the Geneva conventions on warfare committed by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups every time they fire a mortar, a rocket or explode a suicide bomb in Israel.

Occupying a region for the purpose of self defense that continually attacks your state and that has declared a state of war against you that they intend to pursue until you are dead - is not illegal. Killing innocent civilians in a continuous campaign of terror is.

The answer to this dilemma has always been simple. When the Palestinians* decide to obey international law there will be no need for any occupation. That's been the case since 1967.

* Palestinians in this context means those Arabs inhabiting the WB and Gaza who have enough influence to control whatever level of governance exists at the time and to determine actions external to the WB and Gaza - such as rocket attacks against Israel. I do not mean all Palestinians.

[breakaleg]

21. The UN's hands are tied because the US allows it. Don't mistake lack of action

on their part for support of Israel's policies. If it weren't for that nasty veto power, more would be done.

[Tara_NM]

86. question

You wrote:
"As long as a significant number of Palestinians support (or at least do not oppose) efforts by armed militants to carry on the jihad against Israel - then Israel is justified in occupying that land in order to defend itself."

Does the opposite hold true? Or is only ok for ONE side to defend itself against those on the other side who support (or at least do not oppose) efforts by armed militants to commit acts of violence on the other.

Is it not wrong to support (or at not oppose) efforts by armed militants to commit acts violence REGARDLESS of which nation or religion it is being done in the name of?

imho, BOTH sides in this conflict seem to be saying it's ok for their own side to commit acts of violence in the name of self defense and yet also claim it simply unacceptable for the other side to do the same.

From an outside perspective such as where I come from ( being neither connected to either side in any way or fashion) it appears to be a big circular fight.

On this entire issue I would like people to seriously consider the wise words that can be seen in my siggy below. Thanks for reading and peace and blessings on ALL the people of the world.

[msmcghee]

89. Hi Tara. Thanks for the question.

Carefully reading your words I find several areas where we have a basic difference regarding the underlying reality of the conflict. I'll see if I can illuminate this.

Tara: "Does the opposite hold true? Or is only ok for ONE side to defend itself against those on the other side who support (or at least do not oppose) efforts by armed militants to commit acts of violence on the other."

I have seen no evidence for the last 40 years that Israel supports or sees as its policy the need to commit acts of violence on Palestinians. Israel is the legal occupier of the disputed territory and as such is required to maintain order and keep the peace. It certainly has the right to prevent attacks from the territory on Israeli citizens. Do you have any credible evidence that Israeli operations against Palestinian militants is other than defensive?

I can provide you with thousands of examples of Palestinians seeing it as their policy to attack and kill Israeli civilians. Of course, the easy way to determine if this is the case is to ask what would happen if each side laid down their weapons.

If the Palestinians did there would soon be peace. Many have the notion that as soon as Israel occupied the territories that the iron fist of Israeli oppression pounded down on the Palestinians. That is completely false.

There was peace immediately after the occupation started and for the next few years thousands of Palestinians took good jobs in Israel - their standard of living increased, infant mortality decreased, educational opportunities and schools opened, etc. Palestinian businesses opened.

The difficulties increased only as Arafat and other militants organized cells to attack Israel from the territories. As the terrorist attacks increased and Israeli civilians started dieing - checkpoints appeared and crossing back and forth into Israel became more and more difficult.

If the Israelis laid down their weapons I suspect attacks against Israeli citizens would increase - since that is what has happened every time in the past when Israel has even partially disengaged - usually after brazen claims by the militants that it was their attacks that had forced Israel to moderate its operations. Remember, destroying Israel is their stated goal. Look at Gaza.

Tara: "Is it not wrong to support (or at not oppose) efforts by armed militants to commit acts violence REGARDLESS of which nation or religion it is being done in the name of?"

Self defense is not only a right of all nations - it is spelled out in the UN Charter. It is wrong to attack another state or its people - as the Palestinian militants have been doing continuously - as well as stating that as their intention.

It is not wrong for Israel to attack those whose policy, purpose and actions - is the killing of Israeli citizens.

This is very important. Letting terrorists off the hook because you approve of their charity work (or perhaps because you don't think Israel should have been established in the first place) - or condemning states that defend against terrorism because you don't like them - is the surest way I can imagine to ensure increased and unending death and destruction in the world. The world has always had megalomaniac leaders who were willing to kill as many as necessary to get what they want.

To make excuses for them according to some kind of post-modern multiculturalism - will end up killing many millions before it runs its course. It already has good start. That's because the megalomaniacs of the world see how easy it is to plug into western leftist ideology and use it to justify their aims - which in this case is a ME free of Jews - just as has been since 1947.

I'm out of time for now but this should give you a start if you want to disagree. I'll check back later.

[Tara_NM]

98. and thankyou for the reply

I am still for the most part learning about this issue which has a long history. Because of that I won't be going into any major detail. However, I can safely say I disagree with the following comment in your reply. (which I thankyou very much for taking the time to post as I did learn some new things and perspectives)

You wrote: "I have seen no evidence for the last 40 years that Israel supports or sees as its policy the need to commit acts of violence on Palestinians."

ETA: Something I read not long ago disputes that comment. Here is the link: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/16/isrlpa15506.htm

How is that not a policy action of violence against Palestinians?

Btw, I fully understand that Palestinians have done things to harm Israeli people as well such as this : http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/18/isrlpa14639.htm



From my outside and unconnected point of view on this conflict it appears that so very much of the violence that has transpired between the two has been revenge for the actions of one side or the other. BOTH sides carry responsibility and fault for the never ending violence. It just seems so circular with no one winning and EVERYONE losing ;(

At some point doesn't one side ( or better yet both sides) have to stand up and say no more?

It bothers me greatly to see and read about people on BOTH sides being harmed, especially the civilians. I find it very hard to say that either the Israeli or Palestinians are the 'bad guy' when both suffer and both do harm.

ps- I oppose violence and war in general though so that probably clouds my point of view.

Thanks again and in advance for your reply.

[Douglas Carpenter]

90. Tara, the Palestinians have long wanted peace and have even offered to

renounce their claim on 78% of their homeland. But that was not enough.

The Palestinians would be more than happy to live in peace with Jews, Christians and Muslims living together as equals whether in one state or two.

Here are two different opinion polls of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories:

"Among the various scenarios proposed for self-determination, 'one democratic state in historical Palestine for all its citizens without discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, color, or sex (to be determined by a constitution and upon international safeguards and guarantees)' is the preferred scenario among the respondents (68 percent). However, only 16 percent support such a scenario and believe that it is feasible; 52 percent support it regardless of its feasibility.

- Almost an equal percentage support a two-state solution scenario (65 percent) where one is Palestinian and the other is Israeli (in reference to the 1988 Declaration of Independence and 242 UN Resolution. Indeed, it is the most realistic solution from the point of view of its supporters. Fifty-four percent of supporters believe that a two-state solution is feasible while 11 percent support this potential solution regardless of its feasibility.

- Sixty-eight percent of the opinion leaders do not support a potential scenario to establish 'An Islamic State on all lands of historic Palestine (Jews and Christians to be treated as minorities of non-Muslim subjects enjoying the protection of Muslim state.' Likewise, sixty-two percent of respondents believe that such a solution is not feasible. "

link:

http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/palestinian-poll-on-final-status-issues-borders-refugees-jerusalem-water-politics-democracy-20070304.html
____________

This was a polls with a very specific breakdown when people were asked to chose a model:

"Polling Data

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can’t be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli
state and a Palestinian state
52.4%

Bi-national state on all
of historic Palestine
23.6%

No solution
9.4%

One Palestinian state
7.4%

Islamic state
2.9%

Others
2.0%

Don’t know
1.0%

No answer
1.3%

Source: Jerusalem Media & Communication Center
Methodology: Interviews with 1,197 adults in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, conducted on Jun. 21 and Jun. 22, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent."

link: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12493
_______________________

Much has been said about the talks at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba, Egypt in January 2001. Most of the talk and writing has been very partisan. Here are some unbiased/nonpartisan sources:

A debate between Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and Professor Norman Finkelstein:

listen online or download or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml
_________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut

link: http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/pressman.pdf
___________

and here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2002 -- Text: "Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

_________________

.
Some independent information about the human rights situation for Palestinians:

International Committee of the Red Cross/Palestinian Territories:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine?OpenDocument



http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions:

http://www.icahd.org/eng

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3

Physicians for Human Rights - Israel

http://www.phrusa.org/healthrights/phr_israel.html

Amnesty International/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

Human Rights Watch/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/

Machsom Watch (Monitors abuse at checkpoints)

http://www.machsomwatch.org/eng/homePageEng.asp?link=homePage&lang=eng
_______________


.

[msmcghee]

92. All the polls in the world on this topic are useless.

Polling Palestinians is not the same as polling citizens in an open democracy to get a sense of what policies would be acceptable. It would make no difference if every single Palestinian who wasn't a militant agreed to a negotiated peace with Israel.

As long as there are some militants who don't - who are pledged to Israel's destruction as Hamas is - and who are willing to launch terror attacks from the disputed territories to kill Israeli civilians - there can be no peace. The attacks against Israelis dictate the reality of the occupation and the reality of the conflict.

This is what Arafat figured out in 1971. He and his disciples have been using that to their advantage and to wreck any chances for peace since then. And, after that brief burst of prosperity and improving conditions immediately following the occupation, the Palestinian economy and standards of living have been on a fast downhill slide ever since.

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. this is what was offered in the early 70's as a Jordanian/Israeli confederation

with limited Palestinian authonomy:



link:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/allonplan.html

.

[breakaleg]

97. Isn't it obvious that these offers tend to be too insulting for Palestinians to accept?

It's someone saying to me, I owe you $100, but I'll give you $20 and we'll call it even. Who would accept such an offer?

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. Hamas's official offer of a truce with Israel from Ahmed Yousef:

Hamas's official offer of a truce with Israel from Ahmed Yousef:

By AHMED YOUSEF
Originally Published: November 1, 2006 in the New York Times

"Ahmed Yousef is a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya."

"HERE in Gaza, few dream of peace. For now, most dare only to dream of a lack of war. It is for this reason that Hamas proposes a long-term truce during which the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can try to negotiate a lasting peace.
A truce is referred to in Arabic as a ''hudna.'' Typically covering 10 years, a hudna is recognized in Islamic jurisprudence as a legitimate and binding contract. A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a cease-fire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a permanent, nonviolent resolution to their differences. The Koran finds great merit in such efforts at promoting understanding among different people. Whereas war dehumanizes the enemy and makes it easier to kill, a hudna affords the opportunity to humanize one's opponents and understand their position with the goal of resolving the intertribal or international dispute.
Such a concept -- a period of nonwar but only partial resolution of a conflict -- is foreign to the West and has been greeted with much suspicion. Many Westerners I speak to wonder how one can stop the violence without ending the conflict.
I would argue, however, that this concept is not as foreign as it might seem. After all, the Irish Republican Army agreed to halt its military struggle to free Northern Ireland from British rule without recognizing British sovereignty. Irish Republicans continue to aspire to a united Ireland free of British rule, but rely upon peaceful methods. Had the I.R.A. been forced to renounce its vision of reuniting Ireland before negotiations could occur, peace would never have prevailed. Why should more be demanded of the Palestinians, particularly when the spirit of our people will never permit it?
When Hamas gives its word to an international agreement, it does so in the name of God and will therefore keep its word. Hamas has honored its previous cease-fires, as Israelis grudgingly note with the oft-heard words, ''At least with Hamas they mean what they say.''
This offer of hudna is no ruse, as some assert, to strengthen our military machine, to buy time to organize better or to consolidate our hold on the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, faith-based political movements in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Turkey and Yemen have used hudna-like strategies to avoid expanding conflict. Hamas will conduct itself just as wisely and honorably.
We Palestinians are prepared to enter into a hudna to bring about an immediate end to the occupation and to initiate a period of peaceful coexistence during which both sides would refrain from any form of military aggression or provocation. During this period of calm and negotiation we can address the important issues like the right of return and the release of prisoners. If the negotiations fail to achieve a durable settlement, the next generation of Palestinians and Israelis will have to decide whether or not to renew the hudna and the search for a negotiated peace.
There can be no comprehensive solution of the conflict today, this week, this month, or even this year. A conflict that has festered for so long may, however, be resolved through a decade of peaceful coexistence and negotiations. This is the only sensible alternative to the current situation. A hudna will lead to an end to the occupation and create the space and the calm necessary to resolve all outstanding issues.
Few in Gaza dream. For most of the past six months it's been difficult to even sleep. Yet hope is not dead. And when we dare to hope, this is what we see: a 10-year hudna during which, inshallah (God willing), we will learn again to dream of peace.

Ahmed Yousef is a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya. "

_______________________

And these comments regarding Hamas from Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami:

"SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible. "

link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

.

[Tara_NM]

101. I guess I just don't get why that wasn't enough :(

I am responding before reading your links so forgive me if the following questions are answered there.

If they were willing to give up nearly 80% of the land that is being fought over why wasn't that acceptable to Israel?

Were there other strings attached to that offer that I am not aware of?

Is that why it was not accepted?

If not, why?

[Douglas Carpenter]

102. I will try not to give you a biased or unbalanced view...

but for the sake of intellectual honesty and disclosure, I will acknowledge that my sympathies are more on the side of the Palestinians. And I have spent close to half of my life in the Arab world and have interacted with many, many Palestinians for decades.

So I would recommend reading this 43pdf file. That way I believe you can have more of a nonpartisan view:

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/pressman.pdf

The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut
____________

Undeniably most material on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is going to be slanted one way or the other. And all material on this subject will be accused of bias from one side or the other. I think the book I recommended above is minimal in bias and the author makes a great attempt to avoid any hint of advocacy.

But I have found some detailed material on the internet that also makes an attempt at being unbiased and clearly avoids advocacy. One is this brief lesson plan from the University of Michigan. It was written in 1993. But it gives good overview of events up until the beginning of the Oslo process.

link: http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentkeydates.html

Another great piece of material is a PDF file by the same author I mentioned above: A brief History of the Israel/Palestine Conflict" by Dr. Jeremy Pressman

link: http://anacreon.clas.uconn.edu/~pressman/history.pdf

.

[Tara_NM]

103. I'm saving to read

wow you are like the king of links!

I've got lots of reading to do now, LOL!

[Douglas Carpenter]

104. "The King of Links" --- thank you that's one of the nicest things anyone has ever called me

:hi:

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. Tara, Shaktimaan recommended an excellent book to me

Now, Mr. Shaktimaan is from the absolute opposite side of the aisle from me on the Israeli/Palestinian question. We almost never agree on anything. However we both agree that this is an excellent book:

About the Author
Bernard Wasserstein is professor of history at the University of Chicago.

"Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?"
by Bernard Wasserstein

"Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
As of this fall a professor of history at the University of Chicago, Wasserstein (Divided Jerusalem: The Struggle for the Holy City) finds that, despite reports to the contrary, "neither Jews nor Arabs, in their collective behavior, are animated by crazed psychopathy. They fight over definable interests, motivated by comprehensible value-systems, in pursuit of identifiable goals." Both, Wasserstein argues, are focused on "population, land, work, security, and dignity," and the bulk of the book is devoted to clearly and substantively laying out the specifics. And with good reason, since each nationalism "is now near the end of its tether."

Reviews

Publisher Comments:
In this startling new interpretation of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, Bernard Wasserstein focuses on largely neglected forces—demographic, economic, and social—that have shaped the politics of the region but have also made the two societies so interdependent that they must make peace in order to survive.

"Readers who care about the conflict should not overlook Bernard Wasserstein’s lucid attempt to look at it from some unusual angles. . . . A helpful and original introduction to the conflict."—Warren Bass, Washington Post Book World

"Reasoned and balanced, makes a compelling case that demographic, socio-economic, environmental, and territorial imperatives must eventually bring Israelis and Palestinians to a peaceful resolution."—Eric Silver, Jewish Chronicle

"In this short and elegant essay, slips in a good deal of history. . . . The rationality of the arguments is impressive."—David Pryce-Jones, Sunday Times (London)

"Wasserstein’s readable text is a solid primer on Israelis and Palestinians for experts and neophytes, characterized by a hardheaded realism that is fair to both sides."—Foreign Affairs

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Israelis-Palestinians-They-Fight-Second/dp/0300105975/ref=sr_1_2/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180901446&sr=1-2

Barnes and Nobles link to "Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?",
by Bernard Wasserstein:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780300101720&itm=1

Powell Books link:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9780300105971-1

.

[Tara_NM]

99. thanks I'll check it out

I am an avid reader so I will be more than happy to check the book out... thanks!

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. this comment from the former Director of Shin Bet (Israeli domestic intelliegence)

snip:"Let me tell you why terror levels fell. It did not happen because of the Israeli Shin-Bet, I was the director most of the time and I can tell you that Avi Dichter who replaced me is a very good Director. From an operational point of view the Israeli Shin-Bet is doing a great job.

There are reasons other than the Shin Bet that terror levels fell. We analyzed these and found a very interesting correlation between three factors. The first was Palestinian public opinion, as it was measured by Doctor Khalil Shikaki. The second factor was the terror policy made by Hamas, and the third factor was the prevention and security policy of the Palestinian Authority. "

snip:"As we understood it then, when support for the peace process was high amongst the Palestinian street the Palestinian Authority made greater efforts to prevent terror and Hamas used terror less often.

Allow me to explain. We Israelis see Hamas as a terror organization and we are right. But we must understand that Hamas is not only a terrorist organization. It is also a way of life and a religious movement. Hamas has charities, they have municipal organizations, and they have financial organizations. Hamas will not fight against the will of the Palestinian street. They will not use terror when Palestinians do not approve of terrorism as a legitimate tool.

When Palestinians see progress in the political process (the peace process) they do not approve terror as a legitimate tool. This is why when the Palestinians felt like they were achieving freedom, less humiliation, and an improved economy they did not approve of Hamas or terror. For this reason the PA could fight against terror and Hamas without being perceived as Israeli collaborators. "

from: "My Vision of Peace
By Admiral (ret.) Ami Ayalon"

link to full article:

http://ameinu.net/perspectives/current_issues.php?articleid=28

.

[msmcghee]

94. Is that why Gaza has become such a peaceful garden . .

. . in the ME - after Israel unilaterally pulled out the IDF and removed all settlements? I guess the idea of so much possible peace in their lives was troubling - so the militants just had to go kill some Israelis.

:sarcasm:

[Douglas Carpenter]

100. those are the comments of the former Director of Shin Bet; not me

but regarding Gaza:

. Nine Israeli human rights organizations
issued an unprecedented joint call to the international community to ensure human rights in the Gaza Strip. The statement comes in light of the dire humanitarian situation there:

link:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp

Some 80% of the population is extremely poor, living on less than $2 a day. A majority of the population is dependant on food aid from international donors.

In the past four months, the Israeli military has killed over 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Over half of those killed were unarmed civilians who did not participate in the fighting. Among the dead, 61 were children.

About 70% of Gaza 's potential workforce is out of work or without pay.

On 28 June, Israel bombed Gaza ' s only independent power station, which produced 43% of the electricity needed by the residents in Gaza . Since then, most of the population has electricity between 6 and 8 hours each day, with disastrous consequences on water supply, sewage treatment, food storage, hospital functioning and public health.

The Gaza Strip is almost entirely sealed off from the outside world, with virtually no way for Palestinians to get in or out. Exports have been reduced to a trickle; imports are limited to essential humanitarian supplies.
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility for this growing crisis. Even after its Disengagement in 2005, Israel continues to hold decisive control over central elements of Palestinian life in the Gaza Strip:

Israel continues to maintain complete control over the air space and territorial waters.

Israel continues to control the joint Gaza Strip-West Bank population registry , preventing relocation between the West Bank and Gaza , and family unification.

Israel controls all movement in and out of Gaza , with exclusive control over all crossing points between Gaza and Israel , and the ability to shut down the Rafah crossing to Egypt .

Israeli ground troops conduct frequent military operations inside Gaza .
Israel continues to exercise almost complete control over imports and exports from the Gaza Strip.

Israel controls most elements of the taxation system of the Gaza Strip, and since February has withheld tax monies legally owed to the PA, and amounting to half of the to tal PA budget.
The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip creates a strong case for the claim that Israel 's occupation of the Gaza Strip continues, along with an obligation to ensure the welfare of the civilian population. Regardless of the legal definition of the Gaza Strip, Israel bears legal obligations regarding those spheres that it continues to control. Israel has the right to defend itself. However, all military measures taken by Israel must respect the provisions of international humanitarian law.

The following Israeli human rights organizations call on the international community to ensure that Israel respects the basic human rights of residents of the Gaza Strip, and that all parties respect international humanitarian law:

B'Tselem: the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories * Association for Civil Rights in the Israel *Amnesty International–Israel Section * Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights * HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual * Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement * Physicians for Human Rights-Israel * Public Committee Against Torture in Israel * Rabbis for Human Rights "

link:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp
______________

When would one guess the following paragraph about the Gaza was written?

"Economic conditions have deteriorated so dramatically that there is no formal economy any more. Hunger is now a growing problem. The family unit has been weakened; the classroom has been barred. Children of all ages are traumatized; parents no longer exist as such. Gaza is a very different place today than it was just two years ago when I first started working there. It is a society on the verge of imploding."

This was written in July of 1993 by Dr. Sara Roy of Harvard University who has lived, worked and researched in the Gaza much of the past 21 years. This article was originally published in The Women's Review of Books under the title, "Writing out of Crisis" then reprinted in Dr. Roy's book; Failing Peace: Gaza and and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict - Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Failing-Peace-Gaza-Palestinian-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0745322344/sr=11-1/qid=1164990855/ref=sr_11_1/102-8701952-4352901

___________________

The Gaza Problems are long term:

The Gaza Economy"
Palestine Center Information Brief No. 143 (02 October 2006)

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=169

"Dr. Sara Roy is a Professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. Dr. Roy has worked in the Gaza Strip and West Bank since 1985 conducting research primarily on the economic, social, and political development of the Gaza Strip and on U.S. foreign aid to the region. Dr. Roy has written extensively on the Palestinian economy, particularly in Gaza, and has documented its development over the last three decades."

"Overview: In one of many reports and accounts of economic life in the Gaza Strip that I have recently read, I was struck by a description of an old man standing on the beach in Gaza throwing his oranges into the sea. The description leapt out at me because it was this very same scene I myself witnessed some 21 years ago during my very first visit to the territory. It was the summer of 1985 and I was taken on a tour of Gaza by a friend named Alya. As we drove along Gaza's coastal road I saw an elderly Palestinian man standing at the shoreline with some boxes of oranges next to him. I was puzzled by this and asked Alya to stop the car. One by one, the elderly Palestinian took an orange and threw it into the water. His was not an action of playfulness but of pain and regret. His movements were slow and labored as if the weight of each orange was more than he could bear. I asked my friend why he was doing this and she explained that he was prevented from exporting his oranges to Israel and rather than watch them rot in his orchards, the old man chose to cast them into the sea. I have never forgotten this scene and the impact it had on me.

Politics and Economics

Over two decades later, after peace agreements, economic protocols, road maps and disengagements, Gazans are still casting their oranges into the sea. Yet Gaza is no longer where I found it so long ago but someplace far worse and more dangerous. One year after Israel’s 2005 “disengagement” from the Strip, which was hailed by President Bush as a great opportunity for “the Palestinian people to build a modern economy that will lift millions out of poverty create the institutions and habits of liberty,”i a “Dubai on the Mediterranean”ii according to Thomas Friedman, Gaza is undergoing acute and debilitating economic declines marked by unprecedented levels of poverty, unemployment, loss of trade, and social deterioration especially with regard to the delivery of health and educational services.

The optimism that surrounded the disengagement was also reflected in the Palestinian Authority’s plan for reviving Gaza’s economy known as the Gaza Strip Economic Development Strategy, published soon after the disengagement was completed.iii This document, less a development plan than an articulation of objectives, had, among its primary goals “chieving stability, contiguity and control over land to support the Palestinian economy,” and “dopting effective economic policies to enable the rehabilitation of the Palestinian economy to achieve comprehensive development.”iv

Needless to say the Authority has not been able to realize its objectives given the exigencies imposed. However, it is important to point out that even in the absence of many constraints, rational planning of the sort described in the Authority’s plan is simply futile in an environment that is itself so irrational, typified by increasingly acute unpredictability, vulnerability and dependency, themselves resulting from a continued and unchanged occupation. This is not a new problem but an old one that requires a new approach that argues that as long as the political environment remains unchanged (or worsened), economic development is precluded and economic planning should focus on areas less vulnerable to external pressure (e.g. labor force training, institutional development). Otherwise, planning becomes nothing more than a theoretical and increasingly abstract exercise that promises few if any meaningful results. In this context, international aid can play a critical role in helping people survive but with little if any structural impact on the economy. "

link to full article:

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=169

.

[msmcghee]

22. As far as the settlements . .

. . what international rule or law says that people are not allowed to settle on land that they own or purchase - land that is not part of any existing state? The WB is not part of any state that has domestic rules and laws regarding settlement - other than zoning laws in municipalities generally enforced by the PA in Arab settled areas and by the IDF otherwise.

Remember, the Palestinians* chose repeatedly not to have a state, as that would have required that they recognize Israel.

The Khartoum Resolution:

1. NO peace with Israel
2. NO recognition of Israel
3. NO negotiations with Israel

IMO without a state apparatus to enact and enforce such things as immigration laws they will just have to deal with the reality of Jews sharing the land of the region. Arabs live in Israel with no problem. Why should Jews living on the WB be a problem - other than that being an example of racism against Jews?

* Palestinians in this context means those Arabs inhabiting the WB and Gaza who have enough influence to control whatever level of governance exists at the time and to determine actions external to the WB and Gaza - such as rocket attacks against Israel. I do not mean all Palestinians.

[breakaleg]

23. You are right - the WB is not part of any state. Even Israel. So it's not their place

to buy/ sell land that isn't theirs. Basic stuff really.

[msmcghee]

24. So, buying and selling land is only . .

. . a privilege of those who are part of a state?

But buying and selling land is the mechanism that makes land ownership possible. What you are saying is that ownership of land is not possible except when that land is part of a state. Certainly ownership of land would be impossible if someone had not purchased it at some time and Palestine has never been a state. Therefore, according to you, all land in Palestine is not legally owned by anyone.

And without being able to sell it - then you really don't own it.

If that is the case, then none of the Arabs who have homes or olive groves on the WB own their land either.

[breakaleg]

25. It's the state that sets the rules. What if pray tell, a future state of Palestine decided to

do something silly like, make all land state land and then "rent" it out to those it chose?

In this case, some land that some other party has declared to have no owners - and who the heck are they anyway? - has already stolen some of its land. Kind of tying their hands a bit.

[msmcghee]

26. States can do whatever they wish along those lines . .

. . and often do. If Palestine ever becomes a state it can decide how to deal with things like land ownership. It can do what Israel did in 1949 and allow Arabs to retain their property rights - or, it can take all the property away from the Jews who are there.

Why would their hands be tied. If they are the state - they would decide those things.

I think the Jews who are settling there are doing it for religious reasons - not out of any rational purpose. If many of them lose their land and have to move elsewhere as part of any settlement I would not shed a tear for them.

Possibly the only rational thing they can be accused of is depending on sufficient Arab hate for Israel and Jews - so that any accommodation with Israel and therefore any state of Palestine - will be impossible for the foreseeable future.

[breakaleg]

27. What difference does it make if they are settling for religious reasons?

Is that supposed to mean something? The fact is, the land they settled on was not theirs. If they were so religious, then perhaps they could have waited until a state of Palestine was formed and applied to emigrate there as citizens of that country. Instead, they resorted to stealing, which I'm pretty sure any God would be against, all in his name. Do you not see what a crock of sh** this is?

[msmcghee]

33. Why do you say the land was not theirs?

Who did they steal it from? Do you have evidence from any unbiased sources?

As I understand it, in the vast majority of cases it is either land that Jews were expelled from previously in 1948 - or is land that Jews purchased from Arabs. We know such things happen because Arabs often threaten to kill anyone who sells land to Jews.

In cases where land titles and bills of sale are in dispute - which happens even in recognized states - the Israeli court system is there for resolution.

(If the Palestinians* would make the necessary concessions such as recognizing Israel so that they could have their own state - then their land disputes could be settled by their own court system.)

Yes, I'm sure there are cases where settlers threaten or make life difficult for Arabs - so they leave and go elsewhere. I'm not saying it's all above-board and fair. But then neither are suicide bombers and a refusal to recognize the state of Israel.

The IDF is occupying the WB for self defense. Their purpose is not to manage land disputes. The land in question has never been a state. It has always been land where people came and settled simply by finding an open space that no-one claimed, by paying off someone in authority (such as Ottoman bureaucrats) for the necessary deed or by finding land that someone would actually sell them.

Sometimes life is just unfair. But I have trouble feeling too sorry for people* who won't stop fighting a war and trying to kill people for racist reasons - a war that they have no chance of winning.

Sometimes, if you value peace and life, it's best to make the best of whatever cards you have in your hand - rather than spend your whole life bitching about the last deal.

If you don't value peace and life - and insist on forming your political reality and hopes for the future around the killing of another people and kicking them off their land - then there's a good chance that your life is not going to be very pleasant.

You might check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul4UecZThH4&eurl=

The music is actually pretty good.

* Palestinians (or people) in this context means those Arabs inhabiting the WB and Gaza who have enough influence to control whatever level of governance exists at the time and to determine actions external to the WB and Gaza - such as rocket attacks against Israel. I do not mean all Palestinians.

[Tara_NM]

87. News from House/News from Home

There is an interesting convo about that exact topic that occurs near the end of the film News from House/News from Home.

[peacetalksforall]

5. There are layered reasons for people wising up (as in wise) about the

perpetual war. One country cannot walk all over people for decade after decade and stay supported or even defended.

[papau]

8. I thonk the Roman 1000 years, Arab Sunni 1300 yrs, Ottoman 350 yrs do suggest that

a negotiated peace might be a quicker way to peace.

Indeed I'd like to work out a peace with the US rich as losing the class war year after year is not making me happy. One wonders why the non-rich take the crap year after year without suicide bombers - but that is another topic.

[Robson]

9. Why does the UN allow the settlements?

If I was a neutral observer the obvious question would be why are these settlements allowed to even exist? Why doesn't the UN go in and move the settlements and take the land back and form a buffer zone with Israel until the I/P situation can be cooled down politically? That would solve the internal politics of Israel.

The land never did belong to Israel. Secondly why does the USA support such an obvious land grab. Until I read Jimmy Carter's book I didn't begin to understand what was going on with Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese.

Americans need to start demanding that our government take an objective view of the Middle East now.

While I understand how Israelis would want to prevent incursions by suicide bombers, I also believe that their land grab and policies of abuse have riled up the region and caused the bombings. If someone invades and takes your home you won't you do whatever it takes to get it back.

[msmcghee]

11. Self delete

This double posted for some reason.

[msmcghee]

12. A practice quite common here at I/P . .

. . is finding some notable person's quoted opinion from many years ago and then proposing that it represents the state of mind of the whole government of Israel or the Arab League or the UN or whatever - at that time. This is usually accompanied by an assertion that this represents unquestionable proof of the poster's favorite political premise - in this case that the occupation of Gaza and the WB were illegal - and that Israel "knew it".

In any government there are people with opposing opinions - all promoting their views to the decision-makers. This is especially true in open democracies where robust debate at the top during times of important decisions is the rule rather than the exception. Wise leaders will often want to hear from the most articulate person representing the anti-consensus view before making any important decision.

I'm sure that for every significant decision ever made in Israel - or in the US or Australia - you can find advisers who held opposing positions and who argued them as best they could at the time.

In this case, an adviser to the interior minister of Israel was asked for his legal opinion. That this person held a view of this then - and still holds the view that the occupation was illegal is not unusual. I can assure you that there are still advisers in Israel today who hold opinions on both sides of that issue.

I can also assure you that the question of the legality of the settlements is not a settled issue of law. There are compelling arguments on both sides.

[breakaleg]

13. This is not an opinion from a random guy with a lowly post within the government.

He's not the assistant to the assistant to the education minister presenting his opinion which no one asked for. He was a legal advisor at the foreign ministry who was specifically asked to give his opinion on the issue of the legality of the settlements.


"This could be dismissed as no more than an interesting historical footnote, except for one thing. Theodor Meron, now an American citizen, went on to become one of the world's most eminent international jurists, if not the most eminent. Until 2005 he was president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Moreover, as a law professor at New York University, he published much of the theoretical work which led to the establishment of the tribunal, on which he now sits as an appeals judge, and of the International Criminal Court. The Government was not choosing to ignore the opinion of some obscure legal maverick."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2582180.ece

[msmcghee]

14. Are you suggesting there is a correlation . .

. . between a persons' elevation in the government hierarchy - and the quality of their decisions and judgment?

If so, that must mean that the Viet Nam War, the Watergate break-in, Iran Contra and the invasion of Iraq were all brilliant decisions, just to name a few - since they were all results of the judgment of the then president of the US and leader of the free world.

I'd bet on the opposite. I think high office works to make one believe that their shit don't stink and that they can do whatever they want and probably get away with it. OTOH it takes a special quality to have some humility and to know that you don't have all the answers when everyone is kissing your ass.

[richards1052]

15. Dismiss Meron at your peril

"Are you suggesting there is a correlation between a persons' elevation in the government hierarchy - and the quality of their decisions and judgment?"

I suggest that Theodore Meron is one of the world's most distinguished legal experts in the field of international law. I suggest that his opposition to settlements in 1967 and his continuing opposition to them is a fact worth noting whether or not you like the idea of settlements. I suggest if you discount Prof. Meron's views, that you are doing yourself and Israel's true interests an intellectual disservice. Other than that, think what you want...

[msmcghee]

17. Like, should I be expecting a little visit from . .

. . the Palestinian secret service?

[msmcghee]

19. What about your opinion? On what basis do you . .

. . believe that the settlements are illegal? For you, what is the most significant evidence?

[breakaleg]

16. I'm suggesting this guy knows what he's talking about. His opinion is in line with

international opinion and it's about time Israel faced reality. It's actually becoming laughable that they are holding on to their view when it is so clearly wrong.

[msmcghee]

18. I think you should write a letter . .

. . explaining this to Olmert. If he only had access to your incisive analytical skills.

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. The illegality of the Settlements is not a debatable subject

This is not even remotely controversial or arguable. Any territory occupied after June 4, 1967 is illegal; period. It is just plane ridiculous that this is still being debated; kind of like hearing that there still is a "Flat Earth Society".

Under International Law any settlements built on land or people transfered from the occupying power to the occupied territory is a breach of several articles of International Law including the Fourth Geneva Convention and a number of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. This is not arguable or debatable. This is not even controversial, much less debatable. In fact under the July 9, 2004 decision regarding the illegality of the Wall even the one dissenting vote (Judge Buergenthal of the United States) in the 15 to 1 decision agreed that all the settlements occupied after June 4, 1967 are illegal.

link: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh141.htm
__________

is just one of many, many, many U.N. Security Council Resolutions on the matter:

UNITED
NATIONS S

Security Council
S/RES/465 (1980)
1 March 1980

Resolution 465 (1980)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2203rd meeting
on 1 March 1980

The Security Council,

Taking note of the reports of the Commission of the Security Council established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in documents S/13450 and Corr. 1 and S/13679,

Taking note also of letters from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/13801) and the Permanent Representative of Morocco, Chairman of the Islamic Group (S/13802),

Strongly deploring the refusal by Israel to co-operate with the Commission and regretting its formal rejection of resolutions 446 (1979) and 452 (1979),

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Deploring the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,

Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,

Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of private and public land and property, and water resources,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlement policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Recalling pertinent Security Council resolutions, specifically resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, as well as the consensus statement made by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976,

Having invited Mr. Fahd Qawasmeh, Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron), in the occupied territory, to supply it with information pursuant to rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure,

1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report contained in document S/13679;

2. Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the Commission;

3. Calls upon all parties, particularly the Government of Israel, to co-operate with the Commission;

4. Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel of Mayor Fahd Qawasmeh in order to appear before the Security Council, and requests Israel to permit his free travel to the United Nations headquarters for that purpose;

5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;

8. Requests the Commission to continue to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly the water resources, with a view to ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation, and to keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the present resolution;

9. Requests the Commission to report to the Security Council before 1 September 1980, and decides to convene at the earliest possible date thereafter in order to consider the report and the full implementation of the present resolution.

link:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0a2a053971ccb56885256cef0073c6d4/5aa254a1c8f8b1cb852560e50075d7d5!OpenDocument

[henank]

29. On the contrary the legality of the settlements is quite clear

The late Professor Julius Stone was recognised as one of the twentieth century’s leading authorities on the Law of Nations, and Israel and Palestine, which was published in 1980, presented a detailed analysis of the central principles of international law governing the issues raised by the Arab-Israel conflict. You can read the entire treatise here - PDF doc.

I'll bring you some relevant excerpts here:

By contrast, Israel’s presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence. 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.

Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel. His view is that when the partition proposals were immediately rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression, those proposals could not, both because of their inherent nature and because of the terms in which they were framed, operate as an effective legal re-disposition of the sovereign title. They might (he thinks) have been transformed by agreement of the parties concerned into a consensual root of title, but this never happened. And he points out that the idea that some kind of title remained in the United Nations is quite at odds, both with the absence of any evidence of vesting, and with complete United Nations silence on this aspect of the matter from 1950 to 1967?…

In these circumstances, that writer is led to the view that there was, following the British withdrawal and the abortion of the partition proposals, a lapse or vacancy or vacuum of sovereignty. In this situation of sovereignty vacuum, he thinks, sovereignty could be forthwith acquired by any state that was in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means. On the merely political and commonsense level, there is also ground for greater tolerance towards Israel’s position, not only because of the historic centrality of Jerusalem to Judaism for 3,000 years, but also because in modern times Jews have always exceeded Arabs in Jerusalem. In 1844 there were 7,000 Jews to 5,000 Moslems; in 1910, 47,000 Jews to 9,800 Moslems; in 1931, 51,222 Jews to 19,894 Moslems; in 1948, 100,000 Jews to 40,000 Moslems, and in 1967 200,000 Jews to 54,902 Moslems.

Whether the doctrine is already a doctrine of international law stricto sensu, or (as many international lawyers would still say) a precept of politics, or policy, or of justice, to be considered where appropriate, it is clear that its application is predicated on certain findings of fact. One of these is the finding that at the relevant time the claimant group constitutes a people of nation with a common endowment of distinctive language or ethnic origin or history and tradition, and the like, distinctive from others among whom it lives, associated with particular territory, and lacking an independent territorial home in which it may live according to its lights…

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leaders have frankly disavowed distinct Palestine identity. On March 3, 1977, for example, the head of the PLO Military Operations Department, Zuhair Muhsin, told the Netherlands paper Trouw that there are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese:
‘We are one people. Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. For it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians against Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestine identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian State is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity.’…

The myth of the 1966 Palestinian Covenant that the Palestinian people was unjustly displaced by the Jewish invasion of Palestine in 1917 is widely disseminated and unquestioningly and dogmatically espoused in studies from the United Nations Secretariat. However, it is necessary to recall, not only the Kingdom of David and the succession of Jewish polities in Palestine down to Roman conquest and dispersion at the turn of the present era, but also that the Jews continued to live in Palestine even after that conquest, and were in 1914 a well-knit population there.

[bemildred]

30. The 1967 war was an aggressive war of conquest.

It was planned that way and executed that way. All the rest of this moron's propaganda falls in the dust once that obvious point is allowed.

The Sinai War was genuinely defensive, and the original war in 1948 can be characterized that way. None of the others really meet the test, but the 1967 war probably least of all those Israel has fought. I cannot think of any grounds on which as a legal matter the 1967 war was not an aggressive war, although plenty of justifications of one sort and another are advanced and imagined as in this fellows tripe.

[henank]

31. Aggressive??? The 6 day war was a clearly documented defensive war

Where on earth did you get such an idea from? The six-day war is one of the few wars that is indisputably legal. There is so much documentation on it out there.

From The 6-Day War site

Seven proximate causes compelled Israel to take pre-emptive defensive military action on June 6, 1967; five of them constituted direct causi belli, while the two others were of a different nature: one – political and the other being water

a. Egyptian blockade against Israeli shipping in international waters - Straits of Tiran - and the failure of the maritime nations to honour their undertakings given to Israel following the Suez Campaign, to challenge that blockade, if imposed by Egypt;

b. UN acquiescence in removal of the peacekeeping force from Egyptian-Israel border

...snip...

c. Massing of troops on Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese borders poised for invasion;

d. The Jordanian attack on that part of Jerusalem held by Israel since 1948, and on the UN enclave around Government House despite Israeli approaches to Jordan that if she remained uninvolved, Israel would not attack her.

...snip...

e. Water:

The onetime Commander of the UN Observer Forces in the area, General Odd Bull, notes that the roots of the 1967 conflict started much earlier in 1964 (see Odd Bull, War and peace in the Middle East: The Experiences and Views of a UN Observer, Leo Cooper; London, 1976, pp. 72-78) On May 28, Israel started to pump water from the River Jordan to irrigate the Negev- the desert southern part of Israel. The quantity to be taken was within that allocated to Israel in Eric Johnson's 1955 plan for sharing the combined water of the Jordan River and its tributaries between Israel and its neighbours.

The Arab governments at a meeting on September 7, 1964, objected to the development of the Negev in this manner and resolved to counter Israel's action by drawing off water from two of the three tributaries to the Jordan (Hasbani in Lebanon and Baniyas in Syria), diverting them eastward and then southwards into the River Yarmuk within Jordanian territory. Israel reacted and notified the Armistice Commission and the UN Security Council that it would view the implementation of such plans as aggression and a breach of the Armistice Agreements. (Israeli Notes to the Security Council following th don’t do anything second Arab summit conference, S/5980, 18 September, and S/6020, 19-October 1964 <6> When the Syrian government, inside its own borders, actually attempted to divert the Banyas, Israel responded by three army and air-force attacks on the site of the diversion.

...snip...

f. Terrorist Activity Emanating from Jordan

Terrorist infiltrations from Jordan and their attacks on civilian settlements inside Israel contributed to Israel’s insecurity. On 1 April 1967, Palestinian infiltrators blew up a water pump at a kibbutz on the Lebanese border. Later on April 7, 1967 the Syrians fired on two Israeli tractors entering the Demilitarised Zone located between itself and Israel. The IDF fired back. The battle on land then escalated into one in the air when Israel planes attacked Syrian installations and tangled up with the Syrian Air Force.

...snip...

g. Soviet disinformation

Soviet disinformation tactics play a crucial role in instigating war. The Israeli air attacks over Syria put the Soviets in the position of being able to feed Syria and ultimately Egypt with disinformation about Israel’s supposed intentions such that they provoked Egypt into taking military action against Israel. Commencing on May 8, 1966, a TASS cable from Damascus made the first mention of a suspicious concentration and movement of Israeli troops sighted lately on the border with Syria. By May 21 it was being asserted that about a third of the Israeli army was being transferred to the Syrian border. (see Isabella Ginor, The Cold War's Longest Cover Up: How and Why The USSR Instigated The 1967 War, vol. 7, Issue #3,Meria Journal, Sept. 2003) The Russian Foreign Ministry sent at least eight warning notes to Israel's diplomats, alleging Israeli troop build-up on the Syrian border, none of which was true. At one point Israeli Premier Eshkol suggested that Soviet Ambassador Sergei Chuvakhin go to the northern border and check for himself. Chuvakhin replied that his job was to communicate Soviet truths and not to test them.

There are a load of footnotes and references in the article above from a variety of sources which I am sure you will find useful and acceptable:

References

1] see Odd Bull, War and Peace in the Middle East, Leo Cooper, London, 1976, pp. 72-78

2] Michael K. Carroll, From Peace Keeping To War:The United Nations and the Withdrawal of UNEF, 9 Meria Volume 9, No. 2, - June 2005

3] Michael Oren, What Are the Origins of the Middle East Crisis? Six Days of War

4] Branislav L. Slantchev National Security Strategy:The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1916-1978 (pdf file) )

5] Masahiro Murakami, Managing Water for Peace in the Middle East: Alternative Strategies, United Nations University Press, New York, 1995

6] Israeli Notes to the Security Council following the second Arab summit conference, S/5980, 18 September, and S/6020, 19 October 1964.

7] Lilach Grunfeld, Jordan River Dispute, ICE Case Studies, Case Number: 6, Spring 1997

8] Isabella Ginor, The Cold War's Longest Cover Up: How and Why The USSR Instigated The 1967 War, vol. 7, Issue #3,Meria Journal, Sept. 2003) PDF file

9] Greg Goebel Notes From Six Days of War, Chapter 2 of 4 / 28 Aug 05

[richards1052]

45. Carelessly argued...

"Aggressive??? The 6 day war was a clearly documented defensive war"

This is untrue. The best yr side of the argument could say is that the 6 Day War was a war in which the intentions of the participants were opaque & misread throughout. And that such mistakes ultimately led to the war. And that most of the participants probably didn't originally really intend for war to break out.

Egypt closed the Tiran Straits & it is true that this could be considered a causus belli. But the Straits of Tiran were never an important port or lifeline for Israeli commerce & would not have caused great injury to Israel had they been denied Israel's use for a period of time. It is also true that Egypt massed troops on its border with Israel. But it is equally true that Israel took actions which deeply alarmed the Arab states before war broke out. But ultimately, Israel mounted a massive pre-emptive attack on the Egyptian air force which started the war. So any way you cut this Israel commenced the hostilities. We can certainly argue till the cows come home whether Israel's judgment that war would start anyway (which thereby caused it to strike the first blow) was correct or not. But the plain fact of the matter is that Israel was the initiator of war.

But arguing this issue is foolish anyway (& I only do it to point out the lack of depth of the previous commenter's claim) since what is really important is what happened after the war when Israel misinterpreted its victory as a divine or nationalist mandate to return to the West Bank with massive settlements.

[oberliner]

47. What should have happened to the West Bank after the 1967 war?

Resolution 242 does not call for the establishment of a independent Palestinian state.

Would the full implementation of that resolution at that time have meant a return to Jordanian occupation of that territory?

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. that is exactly what was being discussed at the time

King Hussein and senior representatives of the Israeli government met on a number of occasions to discuss the possibility of returning portions of the West Bank to Jordanian sovereignty with some form of Palestinian autonomy. However this offer put forward by Israel would have maintained the annexation of all sections of Jerusalem that were conquered during the 1967 War and also annexed the Jordan Valley and other important areas of the West Bank. On this King Hussein could not agree. The most famous of these proposal was known as the Allon Plan; named after former General and former Deputy Israeli Prime Minister Yigal Allon. Here is a map from the Jewish Virtual Library which might show why neither King Hussein or the Palestinians found it acceptable. Many people believe that Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan is a modified version of the Allon Plan.:

___________

Support for the two-state solution was completely rejected by all Israeli political parties except the small Communist Party until the early 1990's. And the concept only gained currency among Palestinians in the early and mid 1980's and made official in 1988. University of Michigan -- Amazon link: http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson4.html
_____________

Richard's description of what lead to the 1967 War is supported by the consensus of credible Israeli and Zionist historians. In the past, on the one side Israel claimed that other Arab countries led by Egypt were planning an imminent attack. On the other side Palestinians viewed the war as a planned war of conquest. Most critical Israeli and Zionist historians now agree that neither were the case. But a state of escalating belligerency arose over a period of many years in which both sides are not blameless.

These points are documented by several Israeli and Zionist histories and supported by the record of Israeli government archives. One excellent book on this matter is by Israeli historian Avi Shlaim of Oxford in his book, "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World". Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Wall-Israel-Arab-World/dp/0393321126/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180427457&sr=1-2
Two other books by prominent Israeli/Zionist historians which support this consensus of historic opinion are "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001" - by Benny Morris -- Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Victims-Zionist-Arab-Conflict-1881-2001/dp/0679744754/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180429051&sr=1-1 And the work by former Israeli Foreign Minister and Israeli historian Shlomo Ben-Ami; "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy" by Shlomo Ben-Ami -- Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195325427/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&qid=1180427457&sr=1-2

[eyl]

32. AFAIR the reasons for the Six-Days War

were pretty much the same as for 1956 (as far as Israel was concerned) with a few more added (shelling of the Galilee, for example).

[bemildred]

37. That is a different issue.

If you want to talk about whether a war is "aggressive" or "defensive" and prattle on about the laws of war, you have to pay attention to the distinctions that are made and use words in their proper meaning.

I have read Israeli military people in Israeli media who were there at the time that said:

a.) It was planned long before it occurred, and it occurred exactly as planned,

and

b.) The Arabs states were not at the time preparing to make war on Israel, which is why Israel was so successful in achieving surprise and kicking their collective asses six ways from Sunday.

Had the Arabs actually been preparing for war at the time, the results would have more likely resembled what happened in the Sinai War, instead of the complete debacle that occurred. You don't surprise someone that is prepared himself.

It is true that the Arabs and the Israelis have been more or less continually giving each other suitable casus belli since the state of Israel was created, but if one is to allow that such things decide whether a war is "aggressive" or "defensive" one is left with the idea that all of the wars between them have always been "defensive" on the part of both sides, who were both simply replying to the previous provocations of the other. I prefer not to let myself get in such a muddle.

[msmcghee]

38. Ah yes, the long discredited Arab narrative.

If the Arabs were not prepared to attack Israel why did they mass their armies on Israel's border and shut off Israel's acces to the straights?

Oh, I know, the clever Israelis tricked them into doing it - - even after Israel tried to talk Jordan out of it - so that Israel would have an excuse to kick their butts.

Just like they tricked Hamas into killing some people in Sderot last week so Israel could kill some innocent Hamas peace activists. Damn those Jews are clever. It's amazing how Israel has so successfully tricked the Arabs for 70 years into making terrible mistakes and playing right into Israel's hands. And we all know that the Israelis have a secret need to kill Arabs that they've kept successfully hidden from the world all these years - while they continually trick the Arabs into attacking them - so they can attack them back with more powerful weapons. Hidden from everyone, except of course, a few very clever people here at DU who can see through Israel's subterfuge.

Of course, Israel planned for the '67 war and had a strategy to win it. The Arabs were ranting continuously about how they were finally going to rid the ME of Jews and avenge their last ass kicking in '48 or was it '56 - but just like Hamas and Nasrallah and Ahmedinijad are ranting right now. It's their job. It's what they do.

Israel (usually) prepares for all possibilities, gathers intelligence and goes to war when they have to. That's what they do.

[bemildred]

39. I mentioned nothing said by any Arab. nt

[bemildred]

40. Here, I can't find the guy I was thinking of, but this is a heck of an interesting read:

Eyewitness to the Six-Day War

By Group Captain Kapil Bhargava VM

---

Jacob "Yak" Nevo was a very methodical and energetic young pilot in the Israeli Air Force. He had worked out a new manoeuvre for dogfights. He would let the opponent get onto his tail and then suddenly drop his speed so sharply that the attacker would shoot past him. He would barrel roll and end up behind him ready to gun him down with a receding shot. Once he saw three Egyptian MiG-17s over the Sinai Desert. He told his number two to keep off and took them on by himself to test his theory. For over five minutes he used his slowing down manoeuvre and succeeded each time in getting behind the attacking MiG. No shots were fired by either side. Nevo must have been lucky that the Egyptians never co-ordinated their attack. An aircraft, which drops its speed, can be a sitting duck for someone coming down on it from above. He ended up writing a manual on air combat, which had everything an Israeli pilot needed to know about it. This became the official dog-fighting manual of the Israeli Air Force. He even demonstrated his slowing manoeuvre to Mordechai (Moti) Hod, nearly putting him in a spin in his Super Mystere. This may have helped General Moti Hod, as the Air Force Commander at the time of the 1967 war, to implicitly trust Nevo's ability for operational planning.

The main element of Nevo's plan was to carry out a massive, simultaneous attack with Israeli front-line aircraft against all Egyptian air bases - the most powerful and well-equipped Arab air force. This required exact and detailed planning of departure times and approaches of each of the attacking forces, in order to ensure the element of surprise on every target. On the morning of June 5, aircraft of the Israeli Air Force took off from their bases and attacked eleven Egyptian air force bases in Sinai and Egypt in the first wave.

A report in 1997 in The Daily Telegraph quoted Major General Shlomo Gazit as having told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that the Six-Day War was foretold by a Czech astrologer. The unnamed astrologer had predicted the war and a "stunning victory" for Israel. Major General Shlomo Gazit was the head of the research wing of Israeli military intelligence. He claimed (tongue in cheek) that Israel had this "one source of information". In view of the open challenge from Nasser, and the extremely poor record of the Arabs in fighting Israel in the past, this was not much of a forecast. In fact, the Israeli Air Force had prepared for the war in an extremely single-minded manner.

Nevo was the single-minded person of the moment. He argued that the main job of the Israeli Air Force was not simply to defend the country's air space. It was to help the army gain and hold ground. For this, air superiority was essential. Dogfights were an inefficient way of gaining air superiority. The Israeli Air Force was poorly equipped compared to the Arabs. Its one chance was surprise. He decided that the enemy planes had to be caught on the ground.

He recruited Rafi Sivron, a navigator and helicopter co-pilot, to help him. The two made plans for surprise attacks on Arab airfields. Initially this was an intellectual exercise. He obtained access to the intelligence gathered by the highly efficient Israeli agents. His detailed plans for pre-emptive air strikes specified units to be tasked with each job, routes and heights to fly, allotted targets, and the actual weapons to be used. These plans called for operations to begin at 07:45 hours when Arab dawn patrols would be back for refuelling, and the mandatory breakfast for their pilots. The strikes had to be made without any warning of any kind to the enemy. The Israeli Air Force definitely needed to destroy the Arab Air Forces, especially Egyptian. For the Six-Day War this was called Operation Moked (Focus). It was about three years in planning.

[msmcghee]

41. Anyone who has read about the Six Day War knows . .

. . that the quick win by Israel was the result of the plan to catch the Egyptian air force on the ground and destroy it. Almost every account of the Six Day War I have read describes that attack.

The fact that Israel had planned for three years to use that tactic does not mean that the Six Day War was caused by Israel - or by Israel's attack on the Egyptian Air Force on that morning. Israel knew all along that it was just a matter of time before her Arab neighbors would try again to destroy Israel.

They planned for that day. Very well, in this case. That day came on June 5, 1967. If they had not attacked the Egyptian Air Force preemptively as they did - many military analysts believe that Israel may not be here today.

But, I'm sure the Arab narrative whereby the Arabs were minding their own business and hoping for peace with their Jewish neighbors - when Israel decided to attack them out of the blue for no reason - or one of its several variations - is so much more satisfying for those who believe that Israel should not be here anyway.

[bemildred]

50. You can't very well refute my argument if have failed to understand it.

You continue the conflate the empty argument about "who caused it", a dispute which even very detached historians have the most diverse opinions about, with the rather clear question of who initiated the hot war, who performed a sneak attack on whom.

I don't imagine you would argue that the Arab's surprise attack on Israel in the Sinai war was "defensive", what makes you think that sort of bafflegab is going to work about the 1967 war?

If you start with the assumption that Israel is always only defending itself, then of course you will always conclude that "Israel was defending itself" every time. If you allow yourself to consider a wider and more realistic range of opinions then you will see that sometimes the answer can vary.

[eyl]

52. First of all, another inteesting quote from that page

The build up to the Six-Day War came from President Gamal Abdul Nasser's call in mid-May 1967 to all Arab nations to drive the "Jew into the sea". This was Israel's greatest fear. It was surrounded by hostile Arab countries: Lebanon and Syria to the north, Jordan to the east, Egypt on the south and Iraq, Egypt's partner in the United Arab Republic, not very far away. On the west side was the Mediterranean Sea into which Nasser wanted to drown the Zionist nation. Egyptians were sure that war was inevitable, since they planned to start it somehow or the other. This became clear when the Chief of Air Staff (CAS) of Indian Air Force, Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh visited Cairo on May 27, 1967. Air Chief Marshal M. Sidky Mahmoud asked me to look after the CAS as his staff officer. According to him the Egyptian Air Force could not spare any officer from the impending war effort.

Second, contingency planning is not the same as intending to initiate a war. Yes, Israel had a plan for a preemptive strike; but given that the plan was intended for use in the case of an immanent Arab attack, it's existence proves nothing either way.

[bemildred]

53. Yes, I read the whole thing.

The assertion that the Arabs were not preparing an imminent attack is based on other sources, I think it was from some Finkelstein stuff, but I think I saw it on Haaretz too; but let's say it's a matter of opinion, reasonable people can disagree.

The point, in my view, is that it had to be a complete surprise to work, so you WOULD NOT DO IT while the enemy was actively preparing for war. Nasser's public media blather, or that of any other politician for that matter, means nothing, it's just to herd the sheep with, just like Olmert and his peers.

I am not intending to belabor Israel for attacking the Arabs as they did in 1967, the threat was real, I am belaboring the dishonest misuse of "international law" and assertions that the war was "defensive" and therefore you have a right to keep the land you occupied at that time and that the geneva conventions do not apply and so on and on with tedious drivel and assertions that people do not have their human rights, when if fact "human rights" don't mean squat in the first place unless you have them as a right just because you are human.

[eyl]

54. Not neccesarily

The point, in my view, is that it had to be a complete surprise to work, so you WOULD NOT DO IT while the enemy was actively preparing for war. Nasser's public media blather, or that of any other politician for that matter, means nothing, it's just to herd the sheep with, just like Olmert and his peers.

What that idicates is that the Arab states did not expect Israel to initiate an attack. It does not mean that they did not intend to attack themselves - it would neither be the first nor last time where one side became complacent. And I should note that it's not just Nasser's public statements which were in play, but also the actions of Egypt and Syria.

[bemildred]

56. You do not mass troops for an attack and expect your enemy not to notice.

Or not to do anything about it. Even the Arabs have known that for thousands of years. If you prefer to consider that they must have been incompetent, you may, but I will keep to my view too. I would only suggest that you consider the reverse situation as it occurred in the Sinai War a few years later and see if you want to apply the same logic.

Edit, to be clear: I am sure that the Arabs in the Sinai war were "defending themselves", too, but we would not say that they were not the aggressor there, would we?

[eyl]

58. By your logic

the Arabs should have expected an attack. They were massing troops along the border and giving various indications of an immanent attack; if they weren't intending an attack, I'd argue that expecting your enemy to read your mind and not taking any precautions if he misreads you is a sign of incompetence right than and there.

I'm not sure how 1973* is a relevant analogy. In that case, Israel was not massing troops or taking other actions which could cause the Arab states to expect an immanent attack; and AFAIK, not even Egypt or Syria claim was jsutified as a preemptive strike.

*I'm assuming you're referring to 1973 since you specified "a few years later", even though "Sinai War" usually refers to 1956

[bemildred]

59. Well, they obviously should have expected an attack.

But the question was whether they were preparing an imminent attack, and whether that somehow justified calling the Israeli sneak attack and seizure of land "defensive", trying to use "defensive" in a way that is coherent and not just political cant, and whether that somehow justified the colonization of the conquered territory and 40 years long oppression of the conquered people that followed, in contravention of various conventions and resolutions and so on.

You are right I mean 1973. I suppose I should say the Yom Kippur war, or Fourth Arab-Israeli War or 1973 War. It all gets so confusing. It's really one long war, isn't it? And it's far from over.

You know, I don't think we are going to agree about this. I explained how 1973 was a relevant analogy, but if you don't want to see it, I cannot make you.

[eyl]

60. Now you're changing questions

We were discussing whether the fact that operation Moked required surprise necessarily indicates the Arab states were not intending to attack. Your question in this last post - regarding the aftermath of the war - is something I never addressed at all.

I should note - again - that in the end, to determine whether 1967 was a defensive war doesn't really matter whether the Arab states intended to attack or not, but rather whether Israel could expect with a high degree of confidence that they were going to do so. Consider the following analogy. A neighbor - who has attacked me in the past - starts stockpiling weapons, threatens to kill me, and then points a loaded gun at me. AFAIK, under domestic law (which gives far less latitude than international law) if I shoot him at that point I have a justified case of self-defense - even if he didn't actually intend to shoot me this time.

As for 1973 - FWIW, I honestly don't see what you're trying to get at. If you choose to interpret that as obstinacy - well, too bad.

[bemildred]

62. Are you really asserting I don't know what I meant?

I can assure you that I do.

[eyl]

68. No, I'm asserting that

I don't know what you meant.

[bemildred]

72. I'm sorry, I've done the best I can.

I don't really care that much, and you can't make people see things if they don't want to.

[msmcghee]

61. eyl makes a strong point.

It makes no difference whether Egypt, Iraq and Syria - and Jordan for that matter - actually planned to attack Israel or not. A state has a right to preemptively attack any aggressor if it has a reasonable belief that it is in peril of attack itself.

That's why states should not call for the destruction of another state - and then allow terrorists to attack that state from its territory for many years, move its own armies into position, shut down access to important maritime waterways, tell the UN buffer force to get out of the way of the impending war - and then tell the world that the time has come to finally push the Jews into the sea.

It is not Israel's fault that Arab rhetoric and promises are so often empty. That unpredictability itself has been a large and under appreciated factor in this conflict from the beginning. When Israel sees the actions and hears the rhetoric - it has no logical basis for accurate predictions - as it would if it were dealing with states that staked their honor on their promises instead of their killing - and Israel must therefore assume the worst and respond accordingly.

To do otherwise would be suicide.

To condemn Israel for doing so is simply another call for Israel's destruction.

[bemildred]

63. As near as I can tell from what you write, you haven't the foggiest idea what I'm talking about. nt

[msmcghee]

64. You could be right. I was following your post 59 . .

. . where you say " . . the question was whether they were preparing an imminent attack . . " and its not completely clear who you are referring to.

You were talking about whether someone was preparing an imminent attack (I assumed that to be the Arab states) and whether that justified calling Israel's preemptive attack on Egypt defensive.

(Actually Israel also attacked Syria at the same time but the the attack on the Egyptian Air Force was the primary attack.)

I very thoroughly explained in two detailed posts why it did justify a preemptive attack by Israel and why it was a defensive action - as did eyl.

Some advice: If you think someone doesn't understand you, try stating your assertion in a different way. Better yet, read your posts before submitting them and try to imagine how someone could misunderstand them. Using they ambiguously is one way that can happen - although I think I interpreted your post correctly.

[bemildred]

65. I see you finally got part of the issue right.

I have never questioned the justification you and eyl have made for the war, and I have said so several times now, and I posted an Indian guy that said it too. When you read my posts well enough to know that, let me know.

[msmcghee]

66. It would be helpful if, instead of repeatedly . .

. . telling me how I'm wrong and don't "have the foggiest idea" what your point is - if you would simply restate your premise as clearly as you can.

Have you considered the possibility that either your point is muddled - or if not, that you just haven't expressed it very well? If you can't state it clearly, if not simply, it's probably not very well thought out.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. There's nothing unclear or muddled about what bemildred's saying n/t

[eyl]

69. well, than maybe you can explain it

because I'm starting to get lost

[Violet_Crumble]

70. What exactly is getting you lost? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

71. How exactly the Yom Kippur War and the six day war are similar. NP

[bemildred]

73. They were both surprise attacks on an unprepared enemy?

Look, suppose you have two high-school students that have an ongoing dispute, they have been bickering and fighting and threatening each other for years. Now then, one of them manages to sneak up behind the other and lay him out with a baseball bat.

So, on the one hand, we understand why he did it, maybe he WAS smaller and the threat was real. But, on the other hand, as a matter of law, he is the aggressor and has committed an assault, and he will certainly not be allowed - as a matter of law - to keep anything he took from the guy he assaulted after laying him out on the ground.

Now, that is NOT my argument, but it is similar, a transposition into a personal context to make the line of thought clear.

Now I am done. I realize I am guilty of "moral equivalence" and I have no illusions about convincing anybody that is not already willing to be convinced in the first place, and far too much time has been wasted on this purely theoretical point already.

[msmcghee]

74. It seems you often delight in carrying on lengthy . .

. . discussions about arcane military actions and the political motivations for them. That is, unless someone hangs in long enough that the thread takes on its usual theme - Israel as at fault for whatever bad things happen in the ME.

It could be Lebanon or Gaza or Syria or whatever - Israel always seems to be either the warmonger without a whit of compassion or respect for Palestinians and their society - or guilty of stupidity (one of your favorites) - or both - whose actions always result in whatever civilian suffering and casualties occur. Israel never seems to have the simple motive of protecting Israeli civilians from terrorist attacks.

Then, if someone points this out, you quit, complaining that the thread has become "a waste of time". This one was an interesting variation whereby you first complained that the people who were politely questioning your assertions were too stupid to understand what you were saying.

Although I'd prefer more substantive discussions myself, I find it's sometimes useful to at least mention what happened, for the record.

[breakaleg]

75. I'd like to hang around long enough to see

a consensus where Israel is responsible for anything. Do you think that day will come?

[msmcghee]

76. All you have to do is show how Israel's purpose . .

. . in the I/P conflict is ejecting all Arabs from the ME and destroying their societies - and has been sponsoring (or carrying out themselves) terrorist and/or military operations against the surrounding Arab states for 70 years that are not defensive but aimed at killing the innocent Arab civilians who live there - and/or that Israel, as state policy, teaches its young children that Arabs are pigs that need to be killed like animals because Arabs drink the blood of Jewish babies.

Then Israel would be responsible for something. Do you think that day will come?

[breakaleg]

78. Really? I thought it would more simple. Like stating that Israel is responsible for its actions.

[bemildred]

77. That's it, stick with what you do best. nt

[msmcghee]

57. I have been too busy to give your post its due consideration . .

. . but thankfully eyl said much of what I was intending to say. Certainly the gist of his post aligns with my thinking on the matter. Basically, that Israel had already been attacked more than once by massed Arab armies and regimes stating their intention to annihilate Israel and even worse threats of a racial nature.

The current rantings of Nasser and others needed to be taken seriously. i.e. Israel knew it would be attacked whenever the Arabs thought they had a chance for success. This was no secret.

OTOH Israel had never initiated any attack to that time on Arabs nor had they stated any intentions to do so. On the contrary, they had called for peaceful co-existence with both the Palestinians and neighboring Arab regimes. They had explicitly asked Jordan not to attack Israel in this event.

There really is no sensible case that Israel had an aggressive national posture and that the Arab regimes opposed to Israel's existence were acting defensively. That simply does not make sense according to any of the available evidence from either side. It is that overall stance that had developed between the parties over the previous decades and had reached a greatly heightened state of agitation (because of Arab war preparations, troop movements and rhetoric) at the time - that was certainly a defensive stance in the case of Israel and the opposite in the case of the Arab regimes - that was determinative as to the actions of Israel.

States make big decisions based on the big picture. They don't decide to attack the Egyptian Air Force, for example, because a particular Egyptian Armor brigade had moved close to the border or because Nasser was calling again for the destruction of Israel. They did it because they had good reason to believe that if they did not that their nation would be in greater peril and that more Israelis would die. All nations have a right to act preemptively in their self defense as stated in the UN Charter.

Certainly, individual troop actions can be analyzed tactically but these shed no useful light on the overall intentions of ether side. In this case they only show that Israel had their shit together better than her enemies who were intending to attack Israel.

Tactically, yes, in this case Israel fired the first shot with their attack on the Egyptian Air Force. But that attack was a desperate attempt to take the offensive initiative away from the Arabs and give Israel a fighting chance in the days to come and it probably saved the state of Israel from destruction. I would add that the Egyptian Air Force was largely an Egyptian offensive capability that Israel attacked and destroyed.

Further, I was intending to point out that those opposed to Israel generally, and certainly those opposed to Israel's existence, place great weight on discrediting the notion that the Six Day War was defensive - not because of the facts, but because of their need to de-legitimize the occupation, the settlements, etc. that followed from that war and for which the justification is somewhat dependent on that determination.

Fortunately, you have affirmed that premise in your post above to eyl where you say,

I am not intending to belabor Israel for attacking the Arabs as they did in 1967, the threat was real, I am belaboring the dishonest misuse of "international law" and assertions that the war was "defensive" and therefore you have a right to keep the land you occupied at that time and that the geneva conventions do not apply and so on and on with tedious drivel and assertions that people do not have their human rights, when if fact "human rights" don't mean squat in the first place unless you have them as a right just because you are human.

I would suggest, as your post does, that anti-Israel posters would not be so interested in discrediting the notion of Israel's defensive posture in that war - and not so defensively as to call us dishonest as you did here - were it not for those considerations.

[richards1052]

46. Only "when they have to???"

"Israel (usually) prepares for all possibilities, gathers intelligence and goes to war when they have to."

Only "when they have to?" Did they "have to go to war" in 1956? Did they "have to go to war" against Lebanon in 1982 after Israel's British ambassador was shot? Did they "have to go to war" against the entire nation of Lebanon last summer after their soldiers were kidnapped? No, of course they didn't "have to go to war." They CHOSE to go to war in those instances. There were many military options available to Israel in ea of those circumstances that would've taken them short of outright war. But they chose the most aggressive posture they could in order to "teach the other side a lesson." The only problem is that ea. time they tried to do so it blew up in their faces because military might can only take you so far in subduing yr foes.

[msmcghee]

42. I see, you don't want to let yourself get in that muddle . .

. . unless of course, that muddle leads to the conclusion that Israel started the war - as the first muddled part of your post describes.

:rofl:

[eyl]

51. Huh?

I never even mentioned the laws of war, much less "prattled" about the,.

All I said was that the justifications for the Six Days War were similiar to the ones for the 1956 war - though there were additional ones which did not have an analogy in 1956 - and you yourself characterized 1956 as a defensive war.

I'd also like to see which Israeli people you saw claiming that - given that a lot of the quotes I've seen "proving" this - in particular, the (in)famous Begin and Rabin quotes - tend to be taken badly out of context.

As for "not preparing" for war - I'd remind you that both Egypt and Syria were amassing troops on the border, something which near automatically raises their readiness state - and that the war on the Jordanian front was initiated by Jordan.

[bemildred]

55. I know.

I was not addressing anything you said, but attempting to re-iterate my views, which you did not address, and I should have been clear about that. I apologize.

I don't disagree with what you said, it just doesn't appear to me to address what I said.

To my mind, "defensive" means resisting an "attack", they are contrary notions. If you listen to what politicians say, all wars are defensive. I think you have to look at who attacked who, or who initiated a dramatic escalation. I'm sure the IDF pilots didn't have any illusions that they were not attacking the Arab airfields, and they were very hopeful that the Arabs would not be ready, eh?

I am not referring the the Begin or Rabin quotes, it was another lower-level guy, but I can't find it now. I should have marked it, but let it go, maybe it was all in my mind ...

Sabre rattling is not something Nasser invented, and it means doodle in this context. Bush is doing everything he can to provoke the Iranians, and vice-versa. I'm not saying that the Arab threat was not real, or that the Israel threat to the Arabs was not real, I'm saying that isn't how you decide who is the aggressor in a war. Otherwise you wind up with all wars being "defensive", so the word means nothing. Is not Bush right now claiming that he is defending America while he wallows around in Iraq?"

[bemildred]

79. The 'gold mine' on the border

On the eve of the Six-Day War, chief of staff Yitzhak Rabin suggested that Israel initiate an escalation in response to Syrian-led border incidents in the North. Rabin called the incidents a "gold mine" and believed they would play into Israel's hands. The points of departure were simple, logical and mistaken: Escalation would deter Syria from carrying out further attacks, or at least bring about a war that would topple the regime, with Egypt remaining on the sidelines. A kind of northern version of the 1956 Sinai Campaign.

As the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War approaches, the General Staff deliberations leading up to and following the war have been declassified by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Archives. One such illuminating discussion involving prime minister and defense minister Levi Eshkol took place in January 1967, four months before the crisis. Rabin and the generals urged Eshkol to take the offensive. Eshkol, ostensibly the representative of the civilian sector and the economy, asked questions and was not tempted by the arguments of the military men. As developments lurched out of the control of the prime minister - together with the defense portfolio, which he was pressured into yielding to Moshe Dayan - Eshkol proved that his caution was wiser than their militancy.

In a meeting of the General Staff and the ministerial committee for defense on June 2, just days before the war broke out, one of the participants - almost last on the list of officers and mute during the meeting - was operations head Lt. Colonel Haim Nadel, now a member of the Winograd Committee investigating the Second Lebanon War. Nadel can testify that not much has changed since then. The only difference is that the feeling of depression in 1967 came before the war, not after it.

Military Intelligence director Aharon Yariv, generally a sensible person, was guilty of racist remarks in an August 1967 meeting, after the war: "We said in 1964 that the basic flaw in the Arab character still exists. An inability to make full use of the means of war, lack of initiative, a limited ability to carry out non-standard actions in a non-standard framework, weakness of leadership, lack of tenacity in attaining the objective. I would like to put the lesson I want to draw in slightly vulgar terms. I ask the pardon of the forum. We have seen again that the Arabs are dreck."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/865657.html

[eyl]

80. If you read the last sentence of the first paragraph you posted

It specifically says the motive for possibly exploiting the "gold mine" was to halt attacks in the north; and, for that matter, an escalation would be in response to occuring attacks.

So I fail to see how this disproves the defensive nature of the war.

[bemildred]

81. I didn't think it proved or disproved anything.

I just thought it was an interesting addition to the discussion, it offers insight into the thinking of these leaders at the time.

[eyl]

82. fair enough n/t

[bemildred]

83. For what it is worth ...

I don't generally think of these things being something you prove or disprove. It's more like you have an argument or position, one of a number of other possible/reasonable arguments or positions, and you support it well or not so well. I don't see the world as properly reducible to one correct point of view, or even one most correct or optimal point of view, you have to consider a lot of points of view or arguments to start to get a good handle on it, and generally they all have some sort of merit.

One of the reasons I say "fear makes you stupid" is that it makes people cling all the harder to the one point of view that makes them feel safe or in control or maybe just not clueless.

If you look at the facts, its perfectly obvious that Israel attacked first, and it occupied a bunch of land. That makes it an "aggressive war of conquest". So I wanted to explore that line of thought, especially since a lot of people seem to need to pretend it isn't so. It's not Hitler invading Poland in 1939, but it can be compared to Germany invading France at the start of WWI easily enough, in terms of attitude and strategy.

That doesn't mean that it was a bad thing for Israel to do at the time, the threat posed by the Arabs was real. The problem lies in what followed, or rather it has created similar additional problems along the lines of those created by the original institution of the Israeli state, that is all those displaced and unwillingly occupied people.

And it is still the case that you need to figure out what to do with all those people. It is not safe to assume you can ignore and oppress them forever.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. and here is the website for....

The Flat Earth Society:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Mission Statement-
Background information on the Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society's purpose - why we do what we do
Why a Flat Earth?
Why we don't believe the world is round
Scientific data and measurements backing up our claims
Fighting the "Evidence"-
Dispelling common myths about "proof" regarding round earth theory
Uncovering the conspiracy to withold the truth from the public
Current Events-
What the Flat Earth Society is doing
What you can do to help out in your own community
Join the Flat Earth Society-
Become a member of the Flat Earth Society
Help dispel heretic notions and re-educate the masses! "
_________________

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. and more U.N. Security Council Resolutions regarding settlements

This really is not a debatable issue. Even Judge Burgenthal the one dissenting Judge in the International Court of Justice ruling that Declared the Wall in to be illegal; although he did not agree with the 14 other judges regarding the wall, he stated in his opinion brief that if the Wall or parts of the Wall is being built to protect the settlements, those parts of the Wall are ipso facto illegal, Because the settlements themselves are illegal. (link: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh141.htm#_ednref2 ) This is simply not debatable among credible independent legal experts. EVERYONE knows perfectly well that all the settlements in the Occupied Territories are completely illegal; EVERYONE. What we hear to justify the illegal settlements is a game of endless mumbo-jumbo and comical sophistry that makes the Flat Earth Society Sound rational in comparison:

Resolution 252 (1968)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

267 (1969)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969)
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers

298 (1971)
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

446 (1979)
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979)
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980)
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

484 (1980)
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

592 (1986)
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

http://www.irc-online.org/fpif/commentary/2002/0210unres.html

[msmcghee]

36. All non-binding resolutions.

The discussion is about the legality of the settlements - and perhaps the occupation itself.

The wall is a separate issue.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. That's an interesting line of 'thought'...

Everything but binding resolutions aren't legal and therefore have no legitimacy...

Oh-kay, but I hope you realise the hole yr digging for yrself with that argument. Let's start with the non-binding resolution 260 ;)

The difference between binding and non-binding resolutions isn't legality, but that binding resolutions carry the weight of enforcement with them...

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. the point is that even the one dissenting Judge on the ICJ still stated categorically that the

settlements are illegal. Judge Buergenthal, representing the United States on the World Court is the one dissenting Judge in the International Court of Justice ruling that Declared the Wall to be illegal. Although Judge Buergenthal did not agree with the 14 other judges regarding the illegality of the wall, he still stated clearly in his dissenting brief that if the Wall or parts of the Wall is being built to protect the settlements, those parts of the Wall are ipso facto illegal, Because the settlements themselves are illegal. (link: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh141.htm#_ednref2 )

All international legal bodies agree on the illegality of the settlements and have always agreed; without exception. This question is way beyond the pale of rational debate.

The view that the racist-apartheid settlements are legal is argued only by the extremist fringe.

Supporting the racist-apartheid settlements is well known to by everyone as code for rejecting the two-state solution and rejecting a political settlement.

According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank".*

Under such scenario with the entire West Bank controlled by the settlements that means the only other options are massive ethnic cleansing or a one-state solution whether it means one apartheid state or one democratic state.

If Jews, Christians and Muslims are granted the right to live anywhere in Israel/Palestine they chose as equals with full equal rights and an equal say, that would be great in my opinion and would be welcomed by the vast majority of Palestinians.

"Among the various scenarios proposed for self-determination, 'one democratic state in historical Palestine for all its citizens without discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, color, or sex (to be determined by a constitution and upon international safeguards and guarantees)' is the preferred scenario among the respondents (68 percent). However, only 16 percent support such a scenario and believe that it is feasible; 52 percent support it regardless of its feasibility.

- Almost an equal percentage support a two-state solution scenario (65 percent) where one is Palestinian and the other is Israeli (in reference to the 1988 Declaration of Independence and 242 UN Resolution. Indeed, it is the most realistic solution from the point of view of its supporters. Fifty-four percent of supporters believe that a two-state solution is feasible while 11 percent support this potential solution regardless of its feasibility.

- Sixty-eight percent of the opinion leaders do not support a potential scenario to establish 'An Islamic State on all lands of historic Palestine (Jews and Christians to be treated as minorities of non-Muslim subjects enjoying the protection of Muslim state.' Likewise, sixty-two percent of respondents believe that such a solution is not feasible. "

link:

http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/palestinian-poll-on-final-status-issues-borders-refugees-jerusalem-water-politics-democracy-20070304.html

____________

*

"As appears from the map, while the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank.
Since 1967, Israel has established in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip 152 settlements that have been recognized by the Interior Ministry. In addition, dozens of outposts of varying size have been established. Some of these outposts are settlements for all intents and purposes, but the Interior Ministry has not recognized them as such.
Israel has established in the Occupied Territories a separation cum discrimination regime, in which it maintains two systems of laws, and a person’s rights are based on his or her national origin. This regime is the only of its kind in the world, and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa. "
link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

B'tselem's detailed map of settlements:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf
_____________

Another Map:



http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=3&map=yes

[Tara_NM]

84. They knew ????

The more I learn about this conflict the more I scratch my head and wonder WHY do BOTH sides continue killing eachother.

I also just watched an interesting film this morning called "News from House/News from Home". There is a scene where this grandmother talks about the days back when the people from both sides as well as Christians in the region lived, worked and vacationed together without the hate that dominates so many today. She spoke about hows then it was about finding out about and enjoy the beauty on the various religions and cultures. It was sad and hopeful at the same time. Sad to think about how much has changed and hopeful that somehow, someday it can be that way again.

*edited to correct typo

[pelsar]

85. WHY do BOTH sides continue killing eachother

not for any good reason....thats for sure.......

[Tom Joad]

88. Tara, the reason for the violence is that it takes violence to enforce occupation

it takes violence to be able to dispossess the land and homes from a people. As long as Israel is going to enforce such a policy, it MUST use violence. It can also expect violence in return.

It is not a religious war.
It is a conflict based on occupation and resistance to occupation.