[champdefrene]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

While true on a technicality, this points to another rabbit trail - the moral relevance of international law, when the draftees of the laws are themselves the worst violators.

It is as if a convention of murderers proclaimed that murder is henceforth unlawful. But this is something for another thread.

The point here is "hostile" army. An army can't occupy territory where it is not a hostile presence.

Since it isn't required that there be any actual resistance, and only the involvement of two parties where land is exchanged to be an "occupation", we can point to many other ridiculous consequences.

Southern Lebanon would also be occupied land, since it satisfies your claim that two armies were involved and territory switched hands (even if no resistence was given by the retreating Israeli army). The Lebanese army becomes the occupier, and a Beirut resident who moves to Marjeyoun becomes a war criminal under the Geneva Conventions.

Completely ridiculous, and you know it!

No, it would only be completely ridiculous if, through commencement of a conflict, land remained in a perpetual state of occupation simply due to the presence of an army. This is not what the IV Geneva Convention is about.

The point that there doesn't need to be resistance is to avoid similar cases as to WWII where many countries surrendered to Nazi Germany whose civilians then suffered terribly at the occupier's hands.

In Lebanon, clearly the conflict was between the Lebanese and Israeli armies and it was Israel who was the "hostile army" occupying Southern Lebanon (and Syria could also be classed as an occupying power to a certain degree). At the cessation of hostilities and the return of the territory to Lebanese authority it no longer took the shape of an occupation.

Clearly, the status of the land prior has an effect on whether something is an occupation. And occupation is a more narrow term to describe one country taking over another's lawfully held territory. This is clearly not the case in the West Bank.

Another point - land captured in Israel's war of Independence (AKA the 1949 armistice line) should have the same status as the West Bank. So even if Israel unilaterally pulled out of the West Bank, they would still be occupiers according to you.

1) The First Arab Israeli War preceded the IV Geneva Convention.

2) The status of the Armistice Line as an international boundary is still legally contentious as there's never been any formal agreement as to its status. It's considered the international boundary however because it had been the de facto border between Jordan and Israel until 1967 and has been the basis of negotiations ever since.

Agreed. Israel was extremely short sighted when it built its criss-crossed settlements with the intent that the land could not be taken from them, while ignoring the status of the local Palestinian population.

But going forward, Israel has already agreed to the two state solution, and shown time and again that they are willing to dismantle settelements t reach a permanent peace.

It is now time for the Palestinians to make similar compromises (ie accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state).

The acceptance of a Jewish state is nonsense and is not something that any other country has been asked to do. The PA has already accepted the right of Israelis to self-autonomy, which is better than accepting the existence of a Jewish state.[/quote]

That's my point - it can't. It will only cause the Palestinian side to dig deeper in to its refusal to negotiate - hoping that by waiting out, BDS will give them the upper hand by doing nothing.

Israel won't compromise on its security - and no amount of economic pressure will cause that to happen.

There is also a lot of hypocrisy involved - since most supporters of BDS aren't doing it because of the occupation (they won't support similar campaigns against Turkey or China). At best, it is bullying one of the smallest countries in the world in to submission against common sense. At worst, it is pure antisemitism.

First, I'd also support boycotts against Turkey or China but:

1) Israel is democratic, Turkey isn't so democratic and China is far from it. This means that a) Israel's actions are damaging to the concept of democracy, b) Western nations are accused of hypocrisy for supporting Israel whatever its actions when condemning, say, Iran (regardless of whether you think this condemnation is right) and c) public pressure has more impact on Israel's policies.

2) Israel's human rights record is better than China's and Turkey's and plenty of other countries. I've never denied that. In some ways that's why supporting the BDS is likely to be more effective. Israel is more likely to meet obligations towards international law if pressured enough to do so.

3) Most Israelis want peace and harbour no ill will towards Palestinians. However, most of them don't really have any real understanding of the problems Palestinians face. This is similar in a lot of ways to the South African boycotts. Most white South Africans were simply too far removed from the black populace to have any real understanding of what was going on. A concerted boycott would demonstrate that the international community does understand what is happening, and might bring the reality home somewhat.

As I've said, I'm not a complete advocate of the BDS movement, but I'm definitely against supporting companies which manufacture or sell produce in settlements.

I was also just wondering if you had any comments on the Israeli Supreme Court's acceptance of the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention. It seems the Israeli authorities within Israel accept this, but try to tell the outside world (esp. the US) they don't apply. At best this is double standards, at worst it's propaganda.

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by champdefrene

This post is in response to mighty_duck's assertion that undeveloped land is up for the taking by Israeli settlers.

I don't think this position is logically tenable if placed under any analysis.

There are two questions here.
1. What is "private" land and what is "public" land.
2. Who does public land belong to.

Private land is traditionally defined as having an owner who developed, is in possession, and/or can prove his ownership it.

Public land fair game - ie it does not automatically trigger a human rights problem. The Palestinian argument is that any settlement in the West Bank - be it on private or public land, whether is directly affects Palestinians or not - is in and of itself a human rights violation.

I don't think this argument holds water.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

But this definition isn't as straight forward as it might seem.

I'll grant that it isn't cut and dried, and there are many grey areas. This would be just as true if all the land was given to a Palestinian state. Suddenly, Palestinian courts would need to answer the same question of what is public and what is private land. Would the fact that an animal grazed in a field make it private land the state could not develop for its own uses? How many times would it need to graze there? Once? Once a week for a year? A generation?

Would shaky testimony three generations removed from the fact and no evidence be enough to establish private ownership?

Is a nomadic presence enough to secure ownership?

The mere existence of gray areas does not diminish Israel's right to ownership of public land.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

Who will be the decision maker as to the use of land? Will there be recourse to disputing decisions by the populace of the occupied territories? What methods of compensation or renumeration would there be if a settlement was built on what was later found to be "developed" land?

As you yourself noted, the Israeli supreme court has been on the side of the Palestinians in dozens of cases of illegal settlements on private Palestinian lands. It has proven time and again to uphold such rights and ignore political concerns.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

And once the land is developed, how would issues such as governance, preservation of indigenous rights, questions such as provision of healthcare, education and security be resolved? Would it be that there were two parallel systems for the administration of the occupied territory's land and the new developed land?

Currently, the Palestinian Authority, which controls 95% of the Palestinian population in their developed lands takes care of most of these internal needs. This is of course a temporary situation, until the establishment of a state.

As a permanent solution, it leaves much to be desired, I agree, but no one on either side views this as a permanent solution.

The lack of a permanent solution is something both sides are party to, and after the Palestinian rejection of at least three permanent solutions proposed by Israel that alleviate practically all of the concerns you listed - I see no reasonable argument to punish the Israelis using BDS.

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by champdefrene

The point here is "hostile" army. An army can't occupy territory where it is not a hostile presence.

This is changing the goalposts. Earlier - the hostility was between the belligerent armies (French/German, Israeli/Jordanian Israeli/Labenese) - not the hostility of the local population towards the army.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

No, it would only be completely ridiculous if, through commencement of a conflict, land remained in a perpetual state of occupation simply due to the presence of an army. This is not what the IV Geneva Convention is about.

Armies and states that control them are what keeps our current borders what they are. In that sense all land is "occupied".

But the narrow sense of occupation is different - it pertains to one country holding another country's legally held land by force.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

In Lebanon, clearly the conflict was between the Lebanese and Israeli armies and it was Israel who was the "hostile army" occupying Southern Lebanon (and Syria could also be classed as an occupying power to a certain degree). At the cessation of hostilities and the return of the territory to Lebanese authority it no longer took the shape of an occupation.

Agreed. This is what common sense dictates.

But following the rules you perceived from the ICJ ruling - that occupation is the natural result of an armed conflict followed by land switching hands (regardless of who should rightfully hold that land) - Lebanon is an occupying power in southern Lebanon. It is a reductio-ad-absurdum, not a claim that Lebanon is actually occupying anything.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

1) The First Arab Israeli War preceded the IV Geneva Convention.

Again, a technicality. The war ended concurrently with the drafting of the Geneva Convention, and the status of "occupied" territories does not begin with the Geneva Convention. If settlement of "occupied: land in the West Bank is considered a war crime, then similar settlement of "occupied" lands taken in the War of Independence can be interpreted as such.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

2) The status of the Armistice Line as an international boundary is still legally contentious as there's never been any formal agreement as to its status. It's considered the international boundary however because it had been the de facto border between Jordan and Israel until 1967 and has been the basis of negotiations ever since.

Which just means they are as meaningful as the 1967 borders, the enthusiasm of other nations to distribute the land notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

The acceptance of a Jewish state is nonsense and is not something that any other country has been asked to do. The PA has already accepted the right of Israelis to self-autonomy, which is better than accepting the existence of a Jewish state.

Read the Balfour declaration. Read the UN partition plan.

The PLO, an organization that was created in 1964 - before the 1967 war, is not there to "liberate" the West Bank and Gaza. It is intent on "liberating" all of Israel from Jewish hands.

A necessary component to any lasting peace would be an official declaration that the PLO rejects it's own charter, and wishes to live as a neighbor to the Jewish state. Barring that, Israel would be asked to give strategically critical lands to an entity that continues to vow to destroy it.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

First, I'd also support boycotts against Turkey or China but:

1) Israel is democratic, Turkey isn't so democratic and China is far from it. This means that a) Israel's actions are damaging to the concept of democracy, b) Western nations are accused of hypocrisy for supporting Israel whatever its actions when condemning, say, Iran (regardless of whether you think this condemnation is right) and c) public pressure has more impact on Israel's policies.

While Turkey has its issues, it is certainly democratic (for now).

Originally Posted by champdefrene

2) Israel's human rights record is better than China's and Turkey's and plenty of other countries. I've never denied that. In some ways that's why supporting the BDS is likely to be more effective. Israel is more likely to meet obligations towards international law if pressured enough to do so.

Israel is smaller and weaker than Turkey and China, which is why it is more vulnerable to international pressure. But using BDS on one and not the other is exactly as I claimed - hypocrisy and bullying.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

3) Most Israelis want peace and harbour no ill will towards Palestinians. However, most of them don't really have any real understanding of the problems Palestinians face. This is similar in a lot of ways to the South African boycotts. Most white South Africans were simply too far removed from the black populace to have any real understanding of what was going on. A concerted boycott would demonstrate that the international community does understand what is happening, and might bring the reality home somewhat.

If this were true, there are far more effective ways of bringing awareness to the Palestinians' plight. Israeli media and courts are full of these stories, so I don't think this is genuine reason to support BDS.

Originally Posted by champdefrene

I was also just wondering if you had any comments on the Israeli Supreme Court's acceptance of the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention. It seems the Israeli authorities within Israel accept this, but try to tell the outside world (esp. the US) they don't apply. At best this is double standards, at worst it's propaganda.

I would call it political nuance. Treating the whole of the West Bank as inseparable, or treating public land there as untouchable because of an "occupation" label is problematic.
Likewise, treating the stateless Palestinian population as anything other than an occupied population is even more problematic (certainly before the Oslo Accords, but still true today).

I'm glad the SC focused on its responsibility to protect the rights of people under its jurisdiction. They did not make the stronger claim that you would like - that settling in non-private land is illegal.