Standard Charter Bank Jordan Dispute: Fill & Download for Free

There is no such thing as “UN Law”. The UN is not a world government, nor is it a legislative body in any way, shape or form. At most, it can make non-binding recommendations, called “resolutions”, which can only be binding if all relevant parties accept and ratify that resolution.Second, the West Bank (and Gaza, for that matter) are not “occupied”, but “disputed” under international law. The difference is important. For a territory to be “occupied”, it must be taken from a legitimate sovereign. Jordan was never the legitimate sovereign of the West Bank, nor was Egypt the legitimate sovereign of the Gaza Strip.Because the Higher Arab Committee for Palestine never saw fit to declare the establishment of the “Arab state” mentioned 22 times in UNGAR 181, upon termination of the Mandate for Palestine, the areas allocated for that Arab state became “terra nullius”. Jordan and Egypt conquering the West Bank and Gaza in the ensuing war became illegal occupations, coming as they did from a war of aggression. The status of those territories was specifically “terra nullius”, illegally occupied by armies during a war of aggression.As a matter of fact, the Palestinians waived all claims to those same areas in their original Palestinian National Charter of 1964:“Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah [Jerusalem] Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.”Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United NationsThis article disappeared from the Amended 1964 Charter, so apparently as long as these areas were under Arab control, they weren’t “Palestinian territory”.Now for the settlements:Anyone regarding “the settlements” as a monolithic bloc is not only badly informed, but too lazy to actually research the issue. “The settlements” are actually divided into at least three main groups:Settlements that existed before 1948, where the original residents owned the land and were expelled by the Jordanians, and whose descendants re-established those settlements after 1967 with the approval of the Israeli government.Settlements that were established in accordance with government policy on state land or land purchased from its Arab owners of record.Unsanctioned or “wildcat” settlements not supported or approved by any government, whether on public or private land.#3 are the only settlements that can be regarded as illegal.Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions, often quoted as the reason all the settlements are “illegal” is actually not applicable for the following reasons:The territories aren’t “occupied”, but “disputed”. Article 49 refers only to “occupied territories” and is not valid for disputed territories.The re-established settlements are perfectly legal under any law you care to cite: how can you prevent people from building on land they own legally, as long as they have met all the necessary requirements for building permits, acceptable building plans and standards? If an Israeli can’t build on land he legally owns in the West Bank, then how can a Saudi oil sheikh build a villa in Lebanon?Article 49 mentions “mass transfer of populations”, referring to the mass transports of “undesirables” from countries in Western Europe occupied by the Nazis to the concentration and death camps in Eastern Europe. There has been no such transport in either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.Questions like this are either a demonstration of the questioner’s intellectual dishonesty or his/her intellectual laziness.

If Palestine is shooting missiles in Israel, then why hasn't Israel declared war on them and invaded their territory?I was going to post this as a comment to another Quoran's answer here, but reconsidered and decided to post it as a separate answer.Petri Haikio writes: "Neither palestine or israel exists."Boy, I can't wait to see how you explain that one.Petri Haikio writes: "There are no israelis and no palestinians."People get to call themselves whatever they want to call themselves. Who died and appointed you the Magister of Names? Personally, I have no problem calling an Israeli an Israeli, and calling a Palestinian a Palestinian, if that's what they want to be called. In fact, one of the gripes the Palestinians like to raise is that certain elements who oppose the goals of the various Palestinian movements like to claim that "Palestine doesn't exist" and that therefore "Palestinians don't exist." The people exist, whether or not they have an actual nation-state yet.Now, as I will discuss below, my view is that Arab "Palestine" is not a state yet, regardless of what other nations say. But that doesn't mean "Palestinians" don't exist. They do. They are entitled to think of themselves as a cohesive subgroup of the Arab ethnic nationality, and certainly many others think of them that way. Identities form and coalesce from a variety of causes, but denying they exist when they plainly do serves no rational purpose.Petri Haikio writes: "At least not, if you follow the state recognitions of 45 nations who do not recognice Israel,"Which means a much larger number of nations DO recognize Israel. BTW, where did you yank that "45" figure from? The current Wikipedia article indicates that 161 out of 192 UN member states recognize Israel. That leaves only 31 who do not.International recognition of Israel - WikipediaPetri Haikio writes: "and the 65 which do not recognice palestine."Again, where did you pull that number from? The Wikipedia article on recognition of the "State of Palestine" indicates that 137 out of 193 UN member nations have recognized "Palestine" as a nation-state.International recognition of the State of Palestine - WikipediaPetri Haikio writes: "However, if you follow the majority of the worlds nations, both palestine and Israel exists,"I see you were merely employing a rhetorical device to get our attention, when you claimed neither Israel nor Palestine exists. Clever wit.But in truth, the number of other nations which officially recognize a nation's existence has nothing to do with whether it exists. That would be in any event a highly subjective measure, and would place the power of existence or non-existence entirely within the hands of OTHERS -- apparently you believe that if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it, it does not make a noise. In reality, the idea of "recognition" by other states is an idea of diplomacy, of relations between sovereigns who are each other's technical equals, and thus differs not a bit from the "recognition" or lack thereof which etiquette permits a person to extend OR withhold when one passes by, on the public street, a person whom one does OR does not want to engage in conversation. Refusing to recognize an acquaintance does not mean that person doesn't EXIST; it means "I'M NOT TALKING to that person."Much more useful is an OBJECTIVE theory of statehood, such as that which had become customary international law following the Westphalia Treaty of 1648, considered the beginning of the modern system of nation-states,Westphalian sovereignty - Wikipediaand as also laid out specifically in the Montevideo Convention:Montevideo Convention - WikipediaBy that approach, a putative state actually exists if and ONLY if it has the following characteristics:"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." Id.Petri Haikio writes: "Israel has no need to invade as it has already done so and occupies palestine."Probably wrong, but you need to define your terms. "Palestine" as merely the name of a vague region of the Levant? "Palestine" as the defined territory of the former British Mandate for Palestine, either including or not including the Transjordanian part that was broken away from the Cisjordanian part in 1923 to form an Arab Palestinian state named "Jordan"? Or "Palestine" as a genuine, presently existing, actual nation-state?Let's start with the easy case first. "Palestine" as an actual, existing nation-state is a fiction and a dream. The Palestinian Arab people have never in history had (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; or (c) independent government -- unless you count Jordan, but let's not, because that's obviously not what you are writing about. The current Palestinian Authority does have (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states, which is why Abbas sought recognition for Palestinian statehood and got so many supporters to say "yes" to that dream before it became an actual reality. But if you call a tail a leg, a dog still only has 4 legs. Changing the label does not change the reality. "Palestine" is not a nation-state.If you mean the entirety of the Cisjordanian part of the former British Mandate for Palestine, yes, Israel "fills up" that territory -- I hesitate to use the word "occupy" since it has both innocuous colloquial meanings (I occupy my own home, Holland occupies the Rhine delta, etc.) and legal term-of-art meanings (one nation may militarily "occupy" all or part of another nation if its military is physically present in the occupied territory and replaces or supplants the existing, legitimate government of the occupied territory with a military administration that actually calls the shots). Israel does "occupy" all of Cisjordanian Palestine in the innocuous, colloquial sense, because the whole purpose of the Mandate was to foster the creation of a Jewish national home, and the creation of an independent Israel was the proper fruition of that goal.But Israel does not "occupy" Palestine in the sense of having a military presence in a LAND THAT IS NOT THEIRS, since Israel has a colorable, actually quite superior, claim to be the legitimate sovereign over ALL of the territory it currently holds. Thus, those lands which certain Arab factions also claim as "theirs," are better characterized as disputed, not "occupied," much the way Kashmir (held by India, and treated by India as a normal part of India, but also claimed by Pakistan) is universally deemed "disputed."And, even though Israel does have a military presence in Area B and Area C of the "West Bank," it does so in compliance with the rights and duties Israel assumed under the 1993 Oslo Accords, in which Yassir Arafat, as sole internationally recognized representative of the entire Palestinian people, GAVE Israel the right to treat "Area C" as ISRAEL'S OWN land, with full CIVIL as well as military control being in Israeli hands, UNTIL such time as a final-status peace agreement setting different borders MAY say otherwise. Or MAY NOT, as is necessarily implied. Until then, "Area C" is quite simply, fully a part of Israel, although the Arab residents there are not Israeli citizens, but "Palestinians."Israel DOES "occupy," militarily, Area B of the West Bank, in which the Palestinian Authority (a self-governing political entity SHORT OF full statehood, which was created by the Oslo Accords and was the FIRST self-governing entity in Palestinian Arab history) has full civil control; only about 3% of the Arabs of the West Bank live in Area B, which serves as a buffer zone between Israeli-held Area C, and the Area A, where 97% of West Bank Arabs live and which is ENTIRELY within the control, for both civil and security purposes, of the Palestinian Authority. In other words, assuming you consider Area A and the Palestinian-run government thereof to meet the Montevideo qualifications for statehood (a debatable point, on which rational opinions may differ), the Area A part of "Palestine" is NOT "occupied" by Israel. Area B, though, does have an Israeli military presence, but whether it is "occupied" in the sense of the definitions of the Fourth Geneva Convention is also a matter of dispute, since that Convention only applies to the military occupation of the defined territory of another STATE. And, as noted, "Area B" only came into existence as a defined area BECAUSE OF the Oslo Accords; Israel did not "invade" it, they were ALREADY there in 1993 legitimately, and voluntarily agreed to cede civil authority in Area B to the newly-formed Palestinian Authority. That is quite different from saying an Israeli army marched into some other nation-state's already-existing and already-defined territorial borders and supplanted the already-existing civil authorities governing that territory. The truth is exactly the opposite; Israel is trying to GIVE self-governing authority, and land, to Arabs.And, Gaza? Not occupied, either, unless you mean that Gaza is occupied by the military forces of Hamas, which took control of that territory in a violent revolution against the legitimate Palestinian Authority government of Gaza in 2006-07, after Israel fully withdrew ALL its military AND civilian presence from Gaza in 2005. And, since most of the rockets we are talking about come from Gaza, THAT is the situation we need to focus on.Now, let's shift gears and focus on that word, "invade." Israel did not "invade" the Mandate for Palestine; individual Jews moved there and BOUGHT land to live on, over the course of over a century, before Israel became a state IN PLACE OF the British Mandate administration of that ENTIRE territory, the moment Britain withdrew and Israel declared independence. That is the normal course of events when a colonial power withdraws and a political entity within the newly-vacated territory declares independence, under a non-controversial and long-standing legal principle called by the Latin name Uti possidetis juris:Uti possidetis juris - WikipediaNow, if an Arab political entity WITHIN Palestine had ALSO declared independence back in 1948 when the British withdrew, there would be TWO ethnic nations which EACH had a legally cognizable, and conflicting, claim to sovereignty over the ENTIRE former British Mandate. But, THEY DIDN'T.Instead, the Arabs of (the region known as) Palestine, in cooperation and agreement with the governments of all the other Arab-majority nation-states then in existence, who had formed a collective organization known as the Arab League, decided NOT to declare independence alongside the Jewish declaration, because that would de facto amount to a RECOGNITION of Jewish claims; but, instead, the Arabs opted to REJECT the idea of partition of Mandatory Palestine into two new ethnic nations, one Jewish and one Arab, as had been proposed by the UN in 1947, and to VIOLENTLY ATTACK the newly declared Jewish state, hoping to wipe it off the map, kill all the Jews or drive them into the sea, and TAKE, by aggressive war of conquest, the entirety of the former British Mandate: the territory that Palestinian propaganda likes to call "historic Palestine," which runs "from the river to the sea."Not to put too fine a point on it, the only binding international law in effect concerning that territory, EVER, was the Mandate for Palestine document, which had declared that territory -- ALL of it, except the 77% that had been broken off to create Jordan -- to be set aside for creation of a JEWISH state. And, in May 1948, that's exactly what happened.However, even though Israel survived the Arabs' genocidal attack in the war which lasted from May 1948 until late 1949, by the time a cease-fire agreement and armistice was reached ending active hostilities in that war (but NOT setting final borders or making peace) the armies of Jordan held a portion of what was rightfully Israel's (in Cisjordanian Palestine) which Jordan re-named "the West Bank," and Egyptian armies held the Gaza Strip.Each of those existing Arab nation-states, Egypt and Jordan, maintained their illegal, acquired-by-aggressive-conquest occupation of those territories for 19 years. The PLO was formed in 1964 (with Soviet KGB guidance) to "liberate" what was THEN called "Palestine," meaning, ISRAEL, from Israel's hands -- that is, to destroy Israel. The 1964 PLO charter denied any claim by the Palestinian movement to the territories then being held by Egypt (Gaza) or Jordan (the West Bank).In 1967, when Egypt and Jordan (as well as Syria, but irrelevant for the purpose of this answer) attacked Israel AGAIN, with the SAME genocidal and annihilation-minded intent that they had NOT GIVEN UP since being forced to take a breather to lick their wounds and regroup after the 1949 cease-fire, Israel again successfully defended itself against Arab aggression, in the course of which Israel RECAPTURED both the West Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) and Gaza, as well as additional Egyptian and Syrian territory (Sinai and the Golan).In 1979, Israel gave Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty. In 1988, Jordan GAVE UP all territorial claims to "the West Bank" (which were illegitimate in the first place, since Jordan had only acquired those lands via naked, aggressive illegal conquest). And after setting up a self-ruling Palestinian Authority, by AGREEMENT with the PLO, via the Oslo Accords of 1993, Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Those are the facts on the ground to consider.Petri Haikio writes: "The rockets are fired largely due to there being no end in sight for the occupation.”NO, not at all. Rockets from Gaza are fired by the terrorist group Hamas because Hamas hates Israel, and Jews, and wants to see Israel destroyed and all the Jews killed. It's in their Charter. Your statement is only true if you consider Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheva, etc. to be "occupied" by Israel -- which they are, but only in the colloquial, innocent, "I live here" sense. NOT in the military, acquired-by-conquest sense. Hamas will not stop attacking Israel until Israel ceases to exist -- or, more likely, until Hamas ceases to exist.Petri Haikio writes: "However, the only legal targets for the rockets would be the IDF and infrastructure used by or which assists the IDF."Quite so. Glad you got that right! Though that does not negate the fact Israel has every right to fight back against aggression, an aggressive attack by anybody against MILITARY forces or infrastructure of another territory-holding governing body should properly be considered "guerilla warfare," NOT "terrorism." Guerilla warfare is not "illegal," by the laws of war, correct. But keep in mind that guerilla warfare DOES render the participant a "combatant," NOT a protected "non-combatant," so the treaties such as the Geneva Conventions intended to protect innocent civilian non-combatants DO NOT APPLY to such guerilla forces. Hamasniks are enemy soldiers, from the point of view of the IDF, who may legally be killed on sight when hostilities are underway.You are also quite right that INTENTIONALLY targeting innocent civilians is a war crime, blatantly illegal, an atrocity and crime against humanity. That is what Hamas does, all the time. Hamas also hides its soldiers among innocent Gaza civilians wearing civilian clothes rather than uniforms, which is another war crime, and uses those civilians as "human shields," which is ANOTHER, separate, blatantly illegal atrocity and a war crime. It is a war crime by Hamas because it forces any counter-attack by IDF forces to cause collateral damage to those civilians, which counter-attack is NOT a war crime per se, but is subject to a DIFFERENT provision of the international humanitarian laws of war, requiring "proportionality."Many people misunderstand what "proportionality" means. It does NOT mean "tit for tat," and it does NOT mean a counter-attack is illegal if it causes more damage and casualties than did the target's unprovoked attack on the counter-attacking forces in the first place. Nor does it mean that a comparative scorekeeping of casualty figures is in ANY way a moral indicator of who is "right."All that "proportionality" means is that a COMMANDER IN THE FIELD, making an INSTANT decision on whether to attack a VALID MILITARY TARGET or not, must take into consideration (that is, THINK ABOUT) how much collateral civilian damage his attack is likely to cause, and must NOT attack unless, IN HIS VIEW, based on FACTS THEN APPARENT to that commander, the VALUE of the military target in question is WORTH whatever civilian harm may be caused.Israel takes EXTRAORDINARY measures to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties when it counter-attacks against Hamas rocket-launching sites, which are usually located in the midst of schools, hospitals, hotels, mosques, and other crowded civilian sites. The belligerent-to-civilian casualty ratio in recent Gaza conflicts has been hovering around 1:1 -- that is, roughly half of the people killed in IDF counter-attacks have been Hamas fighters. Most other armies fighting in densely-populated urban battlefields are lucky to achieve around a 4 to 1 ratio -- 4 civilians killed for every enemy fighter killed. That's considered GOOD. IDF's record is EXCELLENT.Petri Haikio writes: "As they are fired at civilian cities it becomes an act of terrorism rather than an act of defence against occupation."Yes, thanks for acknowledging this. Something the UN recently refused to do, to their eternal shame.U.S. fails to win enough support at U.N. to condemn HamasPetri Haikio writes: "Israeli response is as it always has been, retaliatory strikes first for a few months,What the hell are you talking about? Israel has NEVER continued "retaliatory strikes for a few months" after an initial provocation. If Hamas (or anyone else) attacks, Israel counter-attacks AGAINST THE PERPETRATOR as soon afterwards as it is able, to take out the threat -- to blow up the munitions dumps, to wreck the rocket launchers, to cave in the terror tunnels, and yes, sometimes, to kill the people who have launched rockets toward Israeli civilians just a short time before they are hit back. But Israel does NOT maintain a months-long barrage based on a SINGLE incident. THAT would be excessive, and does not happen. To claim that Israel does so amounts to a false claim that Israel intentionally attacks innocent Gaza civilians, since by “a few months” after a SINGLE Hamas rocket attack, the terrorists who fired the rocket are surely not still standing there alongside their rocket launcher, waiting to be counter-attacked. The only people left in the immediate vicinity from which the rocket was launched, would of course only be innocent civilians who happened to live there. This accusation is a slanderous, vile, antisemitic blood libel, pure and simple. Please don’t keep spreading it, if you are indeed trying to understand the situation in good faith.Perhaps you are confused in that each REPEATED rocket attack, border fence attack, or tunnel attack by Hamas gets ITS OWN response, and yes, those DO seem to go on for months -- because the Hamas attacks that trigger them occur one after the other after the other. It gets tiresome, and nerve-wracking, for Israeli civilians, having to run to the bomb shelter every time the alarm siren sounds for another Hamas rocket attack.Petri Haikio writes: "or a war with massive strikes if the retaliatory strikes do not end the firing of the rockets."It's a little more complicated than that, but yes, that's a fair broad-brush summary of what Israel would do next. Those “massive strikes” though are STILL directed toward SPECIFIC targets of military value. Israel does NOT simply“carpet-bomb” civilian areas of Gaza — to claim or imply that they do, is yet another antisemitic blood libel. I’m not claiming you implied that; but some less-kindly-inclined readers may wrongly jump to that conclusion.Petri Haikio writes: "Israeli response is an act of defence, but there is no confusion about the driving cause of the rockets being the occupation and the blockade of Gaza."Not true. The blockade is a response to the rockets, not the other way around. Rockets had begun coming from Gaza toward Israeli civilian targets since the turn of the century, and the number and sophistication of those rockets intensified almost as soon as Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel - WikipediaFor instance, see this segment relating to the 2001-2006 time period:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel - WikipediaHamas won a local election for representation on the Palestinian Council in 2006. Legally, this had little real effect, since the Council had not met since Mahmoud Abbas had won election as President of the Palestinian Authority in 2004 (he is now in the 13th year or so of his 4-year term, with no intervening elections). However, since the corrupt Abbas administration refused to seat any Hamas representatives, let alone convene the Council at all, Hamas took matters into their own hands, and began a civil war against Abbas' Fatah faction which then held all the bureaucratic offices of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. Hamas threw Fatah politicians off of rooftops and dragged them to their death behind motorcycles, among other grisly and torturous executions. Hamas has been the de facto governing power in Gaza since 2007.The "blockade," more accurately termed a "quarantine," was put into effect in 2007 after Hamas refused to promise to abide by all previous commitments made by the PA, including an end to incitement and terrorism:Blockade of the Gaza Strip - WikipediaThe purpose of the blockade, which both Israel and Egypt coordinate in enforcing by sea as well as each separately enforces on its land borders with Gaza, was and is to prevent Hamas (and other terror groups in Gaza) from obtaining outside weapons, or the materials with which to make weapons, including rockets and terror tunnels as well as more conventional munitions.If Hamas will stop attacking Israel with rockets and stop digging terror tunnels under the Israeli border, then we can talk about ending the blockade. It doesn't work the other way around.And, "the occupation"? I think we adequately established, above, that Hamas doesn't give a damn about Fatah, or Fatah-held territory in the West Bank, except that Hamas wants to take control there, too, and kick Mahmoud Abbas into the sea. Hamas would also like to do the same to Israel as a whole, as Hamas considers ALL of Israel to be "occupied" Palestinian territory. One really cannot negotiate with an entity whose MINIMAL demand is Israel's ceasing to exist. How do you compromise on that? Only kill HALF of the Jews? Never again. No deal.Petri Haikio writes: "The firing of the rockets and israeli retaliation repears seasonally and i have not seen any attempt for alternative solutions by either side."In the interest of peace, Hamas can take the easy choice: they can choose to stop attacking Israel, and everything will be peaceful. The blockade will be lifted, and the Gaza economy can develop again; it has a beautiful and fertile Mediterranean location and a smart, capable population.Hamas can also pick the hard choice -- continuing to attack Israel, groundlessly and simply because they hate the Jews and hate Israel because it is the sovereign, independent nation-state of the Jewish people. That means they will continue to get pounded down when they attack -- a process some people cynically refer to as "mowing the grass" -- or perhaps will, someday, go too far and trigger a much stronger Israeli response, in which the IDF would endeavor to not only control and minimize, but eliminate the Hamas terrorism threat forever.But really, it's Hamas' choice, not Israel's. That means the pressure to change should be placed on Hamas, not on Israel, by Western sympathizers of the Palestinians, if they truly wish to end the suffering of the people of Gaza.In a war, ONLY THE LOSER can decide when they have had enough punishment, and declare a war to be at its end, by surrendering -- unless the winner totally obliterates the loser. Those are the only two choices. Israel simply wants to be left alone, and not be attacked. I don't think any honest person can say the same about Hamas.Petri Haikio writes: "the “freedom march” … left 170 palestinian dead and thousands injured."First of all, comparative casualty figures are NOT a measure of moral virtue.Secondly, the name "freedom march" is pure propaganda. Gaza IS free, at least from Israeli rule. It is Hamas which is oppressing Gaza, by their genocidal militarism against Israel, which has called upon their heads a righteous Israeli response. Germany was not "free," either, under the Nazis, but the Allies were liberators, not oppressors, when they made war to remove the Nazi regime. Liberation of Gaza would mean removal of Hamas.Thirdly, the so called "protest" masked and acted as a human shield for hundreds of embedded Hamas terror operatives to try to infiltrate the Israeli border, armed with blades, guns, grenades, Molotov cocktails, and the fiendish "fire kites" and "fire baloons" which destroyed much of southern Israel's cropland and natural areas, with the goal of killing random Jews they might encounter as they ran berserk in Israeli towns. THAT is what the IDF was tasked to prevent. Only those Gazans who came within the forbidden danger zone immediately adjacent to the border fence AND were seen doing something to harm the fence or try to cross the fence or harm Israeli people or lands on the other side of the fence, were in any danger of being shot -- rightly so, since such persons had clearly marked themselves as belligerents, not mere protesters. As for those protesters who simply made a picnic of it, and who stayed a safe distance from the fence? They were in no danger whatsoever. But their efforts would have been better spent trying to overthrow Hamas instead of participating in a Hamas-run agit-prop dog-and-pony show at the border.Petri Haikio writes: "It is almost safer to fire rockets than to participate in the freedom march events."Only if by "participate" you mean "try to breach the border fence." Those are the terrorists the IDF was targeting. The rest of them, standing back, a few hundred yards away? It was just a picnic.EDIT 2018-12-13: I am adding this more bit in response to a thoughtful comment by fellow Quoran Lon Ball. I'm posting it here as part of my answer, since I hope these points are of wide interest to more Quorans than just Mr. Ball.Lon Ball wrote: "All the Likud party parsing in the world will not make international Hague Convention less the law."Which part of the Hague Convention do you find to be in jeopardy regarding the subject we are discussing on this thread? Because that is the first time IIRC that anyone even raised a Hague issue here. Please explain what you mean.Lon Ball wrote: "Although Israel has no constitution,"Israel does have a constitution, the same way England has a constitution -- it's just not all in one place, in a single document. In Israel, the special laws called "basic laws" have constitutional weight.Constitution of Israel - WikipediaLon Ball wrote: "yet calls itself a democracy even without equal protection principles including one man-one vote;"Say what? What on earth are you referring to, here, about "equal protection"? Is this a too-subtle-for-me-to-get reference to the "occupied territories?" Well, those are territories that are OCCUPIED by reason of the country that formerly ruled in them having LOST A WAR that they launched against Israel. Occupation is supposed to be a temporary condition, but the Arabs seem to have done everything they can to prolong it by REFUSING to negotiate, refusing to make a peace deal, and refusing to even recognize Israel's permanency as a Jewish state -- they seem to LIKE being able to play the victim on purpose, since the keys to freedom and self-determination are certainly in THEIR hands. All they have to do is STOP MAKING WAR against Israel's very existence. Is that too much to ask?By the way, when Britain, France, the USA, and USSR occupied Germany after WW2, until a NEW regime was ready to come into power in Germany to replace the Nazi regime that had made war on the Allies, did the Allies GIVE GERMANS A VOTE in internal British, French, US, and Soviet elections? Gee, why NOT?Because Germans were not CITIZENS of those occupying countries, that's why not. Which in no way cast any shadow on the legitimacy of the Allies' military occupation of a formerly belligerent land, or on the democratic nature of the occupying Western allies.The Palestinian residents of the West Bank who are not Israeli citizens (some of them ARE Israeli citizens -- both those in east Jerusalem who chose to apply for it, and those Israeli Arabs who MOVED INTO the West Bank or eastern Jerusalem. Yes, Israelis can move into the West Bank and do so all the time, with nobody raising even a peep about it -- if those Israelis are ARABS. It's only when a JEW does so that the antisemites get upset.) DO get to vote in Palestinian Authority elections, if Abbas or his successor ever deign to hold another one. (Abbas is currently in the 13th year or so of his elected 4-year term of office.) The PA has complete civil AND security control over 97% of West Bank Arabs, in Area A, and civil control over most of the other 3%, in Area B, where Israel does maintain a security presence, as a buffer. Area C is, per Oslo, under FULL Israeli sovereignty and control, unless and until a different border is NEGOTIATED.Lon Ball wrote: "it is now a self declared 'Jewish State’ according to recent Netanyahu/Likud pushed legislation.”First of all, you misconstrue the recent nationality law. Second of all, that law when originally proposed had broad, multipartisan support in both left- and right-of-center parties in Israel.Israel's 'Nationality' Law and Palestinian Lies(Bassam Tawil, author of the above piece, is a Palestinian Arab Muslim who is also a staunch Zionist.)Lon Ball wrote: "The Israel you know just ended. You can thank Netanyahu | Opinion."Your link is to an editorial in the English Internet version of ultra-left-wing Ha'Aretz, a publication held in disrepute by the vast majority of Israelis because of its obvious and consistent anti-Zionist views. Are you aware of how unrepresentative of Israeli opinion -- even left-of-center Israeli opinion -- Ha'Aretz is?Haaretz Admits its Politicized AgendaHaaretz Editor: I’m Anti-Zionist and Yes, Israel=ApartheidLon Ball wrote: "So, Israel is an official Theocracy"No, not a bit. Certainly no more so than the UK, whose King or Queen is the Head of their official state Church. Or any of the other European democracies which have a state church. A true theocracy, like Iran or Saudi Arabia, criminalizes and punishes "sins" as RELIGIOUS CRIMES, i.e. deviation from the standards of conduct required by the governing religion. Although Israel is a Jewish state, all other religions (and atheists as well) are free to practice their own religion, and many acts that are forbidden by Jewish religious law -- such as homosexuality -- are NOT A CRIME. Try that one in Iran or Arabia.In any event, the reference in the new law to Israel being a "Jewish state" is meant in a NATIONAL and CULTURAL sense, not a RELIGIOUS sense. Most of Europe, for example, are "Christian" nations in the sense that Western culture is essentially Christian in origin; even if many or perhaps most of their citizens are not doctrinaire believers, they still celebrate Christmas and Easter, for example. Most of the democratic (AND non-democratic) nations of the world, as well as Israel, are "ethnic" nations, built around a majority group with a cohesive culture, language, heritage, history, and often a shared religion or ideology. France, for instance, IS FRENCH, and its government clearly wants it to stay that way -- jealously guarding French culture and language through an official, state-supported Academy -- but that does not make France any less democratic, nor does Israel's very similar nationality law do so for Israel.Lon Ball wrote: "and only pretends to be democratic."Now you sound like one of those inveterate Israel-haters who accuse this open, tolerant, pluralistic, multi-ethnic society of "pinkwashing" its alleged "atrocities" by touting how it is the only place in the Middle East that is openly tolerant of LGBTQ folks. Israel is not "pretending" to be anything. It IS what it IS -- a state run according to Jewish values, which, if you know anything about them at all (apparently not), ARE open, tolerant, and universalistic while at the same time jealously protecting the survival of this tiny, particularistic people AS a people. If not for preserving our Jewishness, Jews would soon vanish as a people and a culture and a civilization, being assimilated into the nondescript majority of whatever population they found themselves in -- just as did, in fact, happen to the "ten lost tribes."Lon Ball wrote: "It also places the USA in a position of violating its own Constitution 1st Amendment when it extends aid to a theocratic Israel because of required separation of church and state."I suppose, then, you think the US violated its Constitution when it extended aid to Anglican Britain in WW1 and WW2, since the King was, after all, the Defender of the Faith and the titular Head of the Church of England. Or perhaps you think the US violated its Constitution by aiding ANY of the 50 or so Muslim-majority countries in the world whose national constitutions make Islam the official state religion, many of whom ban the practice of any other religion. I'm thinking not just Saudi Arabia, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, which the Obama administration recently shipped billions of dollars in cash to, on wooden pallets in military transport planes; or our ally Pakistan, which is also an Islamic republic; and so on. Truth is, NONE of those things have anything to do with the First Amendment. So why do you single out Israel?Lon Ball wrote: "The conundra are rampant …."What a delightful turn of phrase you coined. Stealing it!Lon Ball wrote: "Mr. Jacobs' biases are on his sleeve here."I make no secret of the fact that I am a Zionist and a Jew. But I am also a seeker of truth and I do try to encourage everyone to exercise their own critical thinking skills and not merely parrot what they have been told as received wisdom -- of either the religious variety or the political variety, right- or left-wing. Ideologies that draw conclusions FIRST then filter out any contrary evidence are not conducive to rational thought. I am not PUSHING any ideology on anybody else. I don't consider rationalism and critical thinking skills to be an ideology, either -- they serve all sides.I do not see Zionism as an ideology, either. It is simply ONE answer to ONE question: it is the view that the Jews as a national people deserve self-representation in a state of their own. While that proposition used to be a subject open for debate, even among sincere Jews -- BEFORE Israel was established -- that was 70 years ago. Israel is now a FACT. So why is Israel the only country in the world that seems to have to constantly justify its very existence? If one answers “yes” to that, one is a Zionist.ANYBODY of any religion or culture or ideology can be, and is, a Zionist, if they accept that one principle, even if they are critical of current Israeli policies (as are many Israelis themselves). Anyone TODAY who does NOT accept this basic principle is not a fit debating partner for anyone who DOES support the existence of Israel, but is rather an ENEMY of the Jewish people -- an antisemite who desires great harm to befall the Jews, the loss of their State AND putting their lives in jeopardy. And there is no arguing with someone who STILL wants to kill you and take your home away. All one can do in response to that is to have a ready defence, even if one holds the door open a crack in endless anticipation for the hopefully-not-too-distant day when that enemy changes his mind and IS willing to treat you like a human being, and to talk.Lon Ball wrote: "If Israel really wants security it needs to follow mainstream American Jewish sentiment as it is elucidated by J Street,"Beg pardon, but no. J Street is an abomination, a false front started by Obama-administration hangers-on, to promote progressivism as the dominant ideology for American Jews IN PLACE OF Judaism.Dear Social Justice Warriors: Your Religion Is Progressivism, Not Judaism - Tablet MagazineJ Street accordingly supports many ANTI-Zionist causes seeking Israel's destruction.https://zoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/J-Street-Full-Report-H.pdfAmerican Jews are not the ones with Hamas rockets pointed at them with a 30-second warning time being all they get before having to dive into a concrete air-raid bunker. American Jews are not the ones surrounded by hostile enemies seeking to kill them just because they are Jews, and to drive them into the sea. American Jews are not the ones who find themselves getting compared to Nazis by vile antisemites just for trying to defend themselves against other vile antisemites who want to continue the genocide against the Jews which Hitler did not finish.I'm an American Jew. And I'm a staunch liberal. And I think much but NOT all "progressive"-- "progressive" often being a code word for "Soviet- or Marxist-inspired" -- liberal American Jewry as well as much of the American left has simply lost its mind, when it comes to Israel. They have bought wholesale into the Palestinian narrative of victimhood, portraying the Israelis as evil, powerful oppressors, and I've never yet met a progressive who didn't LOVE to support the underdog against "the Man." But it's almost all FAKE. The Palestinian narrative is a LIE. And that is why I speak up. I'm trying to get my fellow liberals to see the truth.The US is NO LONGER the largest Jewish community in the world. Israel surpassed it some years ago. And Israel DOES NOT NEED to be told what to do and how to behave by armchair bleeding hearts who are not the ones under active attack, giving them a lecture on "morality." I think the world needs to trust Israeli voters to rule THEMSELVES rather than trying to twist their arm.Lon Ball wrote: "and the many Israel peace groups."Some of which have valid and helpful agendas that really do foster peace, but some of which have agendas that simply help Israel's enemies and make peace HARDER to achieve, because their positions are based on false narratives. That means their actions -- pressuring Israel and giving the Palestinian factions a free pass for terrorism, intransigence, and refusal to negotiate -- merely HARDEN the Palestinian resolve not to make peace, rather than soften it and bring them to the peace negiciating table. Anybody who has read my Quora posts on Israel-Palestine related matters can see where I stand on these various subjects, and will know that I am not "anti-Arab" by any means just because I am pro-Israel. What I am against, though, is intolerance, hatred, and fascism, regardless of who is perpetrating it, where they are doing it, and whether they call themselves left- or right-wing about it. US President G. H. W. Bush coined a term for the enemy that not only Israel, but the rest of the West, are facing right now: "Islamofascists." That does not include ALL of Islam, of course. But it DOES include any ideology that is intolerant of Jews and other religious minorities, that enslaves or brutally kills those they consider "unbelievers," or apostates, or blasphemers (even if NOT of the same religion -- insulting Mohammed is a capital crime among such societies, even if Christians or Jews do it, perhaps ESPECIALLY if Christians or Jews do it). The Islamofascists are the ones who make an enemy of any society that believes in openness, tolerance, and freedom of choice, which they see as a threat to their vision of a rigidly ordered, medieval-interpretation-of-Sharia-ruled society.That is why they hate and make jihad against not only Israel, but the West, as well as more moderate Muslim societies. (And that is why it is no more "Islamophobic" to point out the unmitigated evil of Islamofascism than it was "Christianphobic" or "Westernphobic" back in the day to point out the unmitigated evil of Hitler-style Nazi fascism in Europe. Don't fall for the fascists' shell game where they try to make gullible liberals on the fence believe that anti-fascists hate the fascists because of their ETHNICITY. Do you recall that the same argument was also made by the Nazis, who tried to portray themselves as the victims of Polish aggression, and that same argument is STILL used by neo-Nazis in the US today, such as at the Charlottesville march that left one anti-fascist protester dead? The torch-bearing Nazis were chanting, "Jews will not replace us," with "us" meaning "white Christians." No, we hate fascism because of its hateful ideology of intolerance and destruction, NOT because of where its proponents were born or who their parents were.Those Muslims who oppose such oppressive regimes -- like Mr. Tawil, whose article about the "Nationality Law" I cited above, are, or should be, our ALLIES. And a growing number of Palestinian Arabs, as well as Arabs and Muslims in the rest of the world, in fact are speaking out against the idiocy and repression of strong-man rule and Jew-hatred that has poisoned their own societies as it also seeks to bring down Israel.Arab by birth, Zionist by choiceLon Ball wrote: "Their point is that a constant state of war, isolation, deprivation of property and oppression of the native Palestinians does not a secure state make."Well, no, it doesn't, because Arab opposition to Israel is based NOT on anything Israel does, but on Israel's very existence as a Jewish state. And many if not most of the terrorist leaders are quite wealthy -- not just from graft and corruption, but many of them had started out as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Moreover, I challenge your labelling of Israel's actions as "deprivation of property" or as "oppression." With rare exceptions, it is neither of those things; it is defence against terrorism, and prudent security measures against a REAL, not imagined, threat.Debunking 25 left-wing and Arab myths from a left-wing Arab perspectiveIn any event, WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE? That is what always needs to be asked. A unilateral withdrawal, WITHOUT a peace agreement in hand? Do you see how well that worked out in Gaza, despite Israel having highest hopes for the best outcome for the Arabs? Israelis may be too tender-hearted for their own good at times, but they also know when their own survival requires them to hold the line.Lon Ball wrote: "The opposite is true. If Israel wants to remain in perpetuity in that region, it needs peaceful neighbours."Yes, okay. So LET'S WORK ON THOSE NEIGHBORS with sanctions, public opprobrium, and so on, to get them to STOP HATING ISRAEL. Doesn't that make MORE sense than asking Israel to commit suicide?Lon Ball wrote: "Rockets happen out of desperation and despair"Afraid not. That bleeding-heart theory has been thoroughly debunked. See "Myth #12" in the article I linked to just above, by Arab Zionist Fred Maroun.Hamas and Fatah (and other factions) opposed Zionism and Israel since even before the State was declared, and since even before the new immigrant Jews had learned how to defend themselves. Does the Hebron Massacre of 1929 mean anything to you?1929 Hebron massacre - WikipediaThe Palestinian nationalists hate Jews who are "uppity" and who refuse to kowtow to a Muslim overlord, since their very identity is firmly tied up in the belief that ONLY a Muslim-majority state has any right to exist anywhere in the Middle East. The Palestinian national movement holds this view whether they are devoutly religious Muslims or not -- in fact, even if they are not themselves Muslims. THAT is the main root of Jew-hatred in the Middle East, and it is NOT merely a "property dispute." (The Islamists among them also hate Israel for the same reason they hate the democratic Christian West -- because of its openness and tolerance, which they see as a sinful abomination deserving only destruction. But they have a SPECIAL hatred reserved for the non-dhimmi Jews who had the chutzpah to build an independent home in the Middle East.)Lon Ball wrote: "and are asymmetrically retaliated."Damn right they are. As ANY military tactician or strategist would tell you a heavy counter-attack MUST be done to deter further aggressive attack. It would be purely IDIOTIC to respond "tit for tat" to a cross-border rocket attack; that "slap on the wrist" approach would only encourage more aggressive attacks. That is standard military doctrine. Do not apply a double standard to Israel. I'm not even going to argue about this.Lon Ball wrote: "This is the basis for the idea of Two State Solution."WHAT is? What is the "this" you are referring to? Certainly you cannot mean that unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank is "the basis for the Two State Solution."The "Two State Solution" depends on trading land for PEACE.Israel is WILLING to trade land. They have shown that time and again. But, except for Egypt and Jordan, none of those who have been attacking Israel ever since 1948 and who still seek her ultimate destruction are yet willing to make peace, despite having lost every war of aggression they launched against Israel. Now, they are trying a different tactic, using propaganda to sway naïve kind-hearted fools in the West to be their "useful idiots" and force Israel to its knees by diplomatic means. Words fail me to describe how angry I am that, in some circles at least, the haters appear to be succeeding with their demonization and delegitimization of Israel.Haters are gonna hate, yes. But I'm DONE apologizing to them for what Israel does or what it is. There is not really any basis for dialogue with someone who only wants to kill you.Dear Fellow Liberals: I'm Done Apologizing for IsraelI'm Done Apologizing for IsraelOr, more pithily,Shalom, motherf****r.Lon Ball wrote: "Israel would be well served to end your speculation that Palestine does not exist by simple recognition of it and then equitable treatment of Palestinian State according to diplomatic means,”You are mixing apples and oranges. Acknowledging what the situation in reality is NOW is a necessary prerequisite to figuring out what to do NEXT.Palestine does NOT exist as a nation-state, currently, despite the wishful thinking of many UN member states. And even if Israel were to "recognize" Palestine as a state tomorrow, THAT STILL WOULD NOT MAKE IT ONE. "Palestine" lacks the characteristics of statehood as required by the Montevideo Convention. Period. YES, working toward GETTING those characteristics would be a good idea. But "Palestine" does not BECOME a state until it meets all of them.The Palestinian people do already HAVE a state in all but name -- in Gaza, after Israel withdrew unilaterally in 2005. It has defined borders, a defined population, and a government.But look what good that did, peace-wise.The Palestinian people also already have a majority-Palestinian, Arab-run state in Jordan -- one which is, thankfully, NOT ruled by either an Islamist terrorist organization (Hamas) or a coalition of secular-nationalist and Islamic terrorist factions (the PLO). For the most part -- EXCEPT for the aforesaid terrorists, whose megalomania means they want to install themselves as rulers -- most Arabs do not care who rules them, as long as it is a Muslim. The "strong man" autocratic authoritarian model is the form of government they are most familiar with, and they are not truly interested in "democracy" except to use it, when offered, to install their favorite autocrat, who will promptly cancel all future elections and assume dictatorial powers as soon as he is elected.If Israel were to unilaterally withdraw entirely from the West Bank and recognize its independence as "Palestine" tomorrow, do you honestly think THAT would end the terrorist attacks on Israel? Would not Hamas (or worse) take over from the corrupt Fatah elders in Ramallah, and start launching their rockets toward Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport from THERE instead of from distant Gaza? If you think not, on what rational basis can you deny this?The fact is, these forces do not just WANT a separate state in Gaza and the West Bank, side-by-side with a permanent Jewish state. They are willing to accept a "two state solution" only as an INTERIM solution to gain territory at no cost to themselves while they CONTINUE their attacks on Israel with the ultimate goal of destroying it completely. See above re: how the mere existence of Jewish sovereignty on ANY tiny patch of land in the Middle East -- even if the Jews had NO Arabs living in Jewish territory -- is anathema to the Muslim mind and merely heightens their Jew-hatred.Lon Ball wrote: "not military that is destabilising for long term Israel."Agreed, of course. It's a terrible dilemma FOR ISRAEL as well as for the Palestinian Arabs. But it's one that the Arabs hold the key to unlock, by making peace. The fact they do NOT do so, despite losing every war they made on Israel, means they do not WANT peace -- they want to continue the attack until Israel is GONE, because that is a central IDEOLOGICAL issue for them that goes to their core identity.Do the Palestinians Really Want Their Own State? - The American InterestMeanwhile -- reluctantly, and often with no real choice other than suicide -- Israel does what it has to do to survive this onslaught.Lon Ball wrote: "I am Sephardic so perhaps can be more objective than the 62 million victims of the Nazi/Corporatist Holocaust.”Fine. But then how do you explain that it is some among the Ashkenazic, European-descended Jews of Israel who are more likely to join LEFT-wing Israeli parties and be conciliatory toward the Arabs, while virtually ALL of your "Sephardic" co-citizens -- Mizrachi Jews, those from Middle Eastern lands -- are staunchly opposed to making unreciprocated concessions to the Arabs, and largely support Likud and other "right-wing" parties? Are THEY less "objective" because of the Holocaust? Or maybe it's because of the Farhud of 1941 (in Iraq, long before Israeli independence)Memories of Baghdad's 1941 pogromor because of the Jewish parallel to the "naqba" that immediately followed the Arab one? Virtually every Jew in Arab and other Muslim lands was dispossessed and driven out almost overnight (if not killed outright) after Israel survived the genocidal 1948 war.https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Issues/Pages/Jewish-refugees-expelled-from-Arab-lands-and-from-Iran-29-November-2016.aspxMaybe that has something to do with the Mizrachi Jews' distrust and dislike of Arabs.Lon Ball wrote: "Please, don’t be an instrument of separation"Wait, aren't the "Two State Solution" people the ones preaching SEPARATION? What am I missing, here? I’m the guy promoting NORMALIZATION, and COOPERATION, and COLLABORATION on mutually beneficial projects, as the best way to START to open the door to the possibility of peace. Boycotting, sanctioning, and divesting from Israel has the OPPOSITE effect — it drives the parties further apart.I am OPEN to the possibility of a "two state solution" IF that's what both sides agree to, in DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS between the formerly warring parties. If you want to assign a policy view to me at all, as opposed to just trying to expose the truth, it would be that I believe NEGOTIATION and mutual agreement is the ONLY way to resolve a dispute like this, given its origin and history. Mainly, I dispute any attempt to BYPASS negotiations and make unilateral changes in the status quo. That’s why Abbas’ diplomatic moves at the UN are undermining peace.Unilateral Israeli withdrawal would NOT "solve the problem," either. That is a naïve, vain hope which I should think was already killed, with a wooden stake driven through its vampire heart, by the situation in Gaza. Without a binding peace agreement, ATTACKS WOULD CONTINUE on Israel, and Israel would simply be left in a WEAKER position to fight back, while the Hamasniks and other haters would have gained the "high ground," both figuratively AND literally, by taking over the Judean hills, where their artillery would have an easy and short ballistic lob over to Ben Gurion Airport, paralyzing the whole country. Israel CANNOT allow this to happen.Lon Ball wrote: "and competition"Wait, what? Explain what you mean. How is that even relevant to anything we are discussing? What kind of competition? Are you an orthodox Marxist condemning competitive capitalism, there, or what?Lon Ball wrote: "and Likud hawkism."Sorry, I DO NOT see Likud as "hawks." Wanting to avoid national suicide is not being a "hawk." A "hawk" is someone who wants to START a war, in my view. Hamas are clearly "hawks," and so are Hezbollah -- and if you include incitement to commit terrorism in your definition of "hawk," Fatah fits the bill nicely, too, with their incentive payments to the families of slain and jailed terrorists. Abbas is PAYING people hard cash to KILL JEWS, in addition to promising them a ticket to Paradise as “martyrs.”If you think there is no difference between aggression and "standing one's ground," and if you think the only reasonable response to someone who OPENLY WANTS TO KILL YOUR PEOPLE is to roll over and offer your neck to the slaughterer, then, yes, I guess Netanyahu is a "hawk" by that definition. And I'm GLAD he is, as are the majority of Israelis today - who are STILL willing to negotiate to make peace with the Arabs, if the Arabs ever truly come around. It is the Arabs who refuse to come to the negotiating table and insist on prolonging the ALREADY EXISTING war.Lon Ball wrote: "Be an instrument for true shalom,"I'M TRYING to be! But that word "true" in there is important. Peace that is not based on true AGREEMENT in good faith, and on a mutual understanding of the REAL facts that exist, is a false peace, a mere hudna (Arabic for a strategic cease-fire) in which Israel's enemies would gain territory and re-arm to continue their attacks. True peace can come only through NEGOTIATION to reach a mutually agreeable solution with verifiable disarmament by the Arabs and full normalization. Surely you do not think that a mere unilateral Israeli withdrawal would lead to either of those desiderata. It certainly didn't with regard to Gaza.Lon Ball wrote: "make peace for the sake of the world"What does THAT mean? Make peace just because the world is telling us to do so? Even under circumstances where it would be suicidal? Sorry, I don't think so. That's what "never again" means. The Israeli center-left is ALSO on board with that idea.Lon Ball wrote: "stand up to Christian Zionism"Sorry, but please explain what you have against Christian Zionism. In specifics. You are making an awful lot of assumptions about shared ideological views, here, and that is the problem I noted at the beginning of this comment -- it prevents rational thought.Israel needs all the friends it can get. I don’t see the benefit of driving some of them away just because they are evangelical Christians who support Israel partly for religious reasons. Many other Christians in the US — including liberal ones — have long been supporters of Israel because of non-religious values Israel shares with America in general, too. Support for Israel USED TO BE a bi-partisan no-brainer in the USA until the so-called “progressive” anti-Zionists, inspired by the Soviet Union’s abominable and since-rescinded “Zionism is racism” UN resolution of 1975 and by the Durban Conference of 2001 which directly grew out of that KGB-sponsored view, made inroads among SOME segments of the Democrats. Fortunately, overall support for Israel in America is still strong, among non-Jews as well as Jews.Lon Ball wrote: "stand up to … Jewish expansionists and revisionists."Who are you calling "expansionists?" Nobody at all, so far as I know, wants to "expand" Israel beyond the lands it currently controls. And UNTIL a negotiated solution requires drawing of different borders, that's the ONLY borders that matter. Even the Oslo Accords say so. Why is not "the world" pressuring the Arabs to hurry up and make peace under the Oslo formula before new Israeli "facts on the ground" in Area C make that "impossible," IF THAT'S WHAT THEY THINK IS GOING TO RESULT from Israeli “settlements”? Or, why don't the Arabs hurry up and make up their OWN mind to do so, before it is too late? Maybe because the "settlements" are NOT such an "obstacle to peace," after all? Hm?And just who are you calling "revisionists?" As with the last phrase where I asked the same thing, this is a SERIOUS, not a rhetorical, question. Am I a "revisionist" because I actually LOOK to the Mandate for Palestine Document to see what it means? It IS the only legally binding international treaty governing the terms for the creation of a Jewish national home. Or, am I a "revisionist" because, for all its flaws, I believe that NOW THAT OSLO HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ARAFAT, it is the law of the land, and ALLOWS Israel to have full civil control over Area C? Which includes, the building of homes? Please do elaborate on what we are "revising" as opposed to finally recognizing reality without ideological blinders.Lon Ball wrote: "Be happy. Shalom."Thank you! You too.

It is not clear there is a sound answer. Certainly, there is not one that is consistently applied. For example, around the world, there is a distinction made between an offensive and defensive war. Israel won the WB and Gaza from Jordan after promising Jordan that Israel would not attack Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel first. Then, Jordan attacked Israel. Typically, only land "won" in an offensive war is called occupied. Another example of the inconsistent standards used for Israel can be seen regarding Kashmir. It is referred to as "disputed," not occupied...PS: The authors of UN SC Res 242 clearly believed that the land did not belong to any other state. Additionally,Although Resolution 242 refers to “the inadmissibility” of acquiring territory by war, a statement used in nearly all UN resolutions relating to Israel, Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, explains that the principle of “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” must be read together with other principles:“… namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”4Resolution 242 immediately follows to emphasize the “need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security.”While Resolution 242 may call upon Israel to withdraw from territory it captured during the war, the UN recognized that Israel cannot return to the non-secure borders existing before the Six-Day War that invited aggression.See also:1. The “Inadmissibility of the Acquisition of Territory by War”The exact meaning of Resolution 242’s preamble is hotly debated: does thestatement therein on “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” implythat, in the opinion of the Security Council, Israel’s retention of the territoriesoccupied in 1967 was, and is, illegal?To answer this question, it is necessary to draw attention to the fundamental difference between military occupation and the acquisition of territory. The former does not entail any change in a territory’s national status, although it does give the occupier certain powers as well as the responsibilities and the right to stay in the territory until peace has been concluded. Mere military occupation of the land does not confer any legal title to sovereignty.Due to the prohibition of the use of force under the UN Charter, the legality ofmilitary occupation has been the subject of differing opinions. It is generallyrecognized that occupation resulting from a lawful use of force (i.e., an act ofself-defense) is legitimate. Thus, the 1970 UN General Assembly “Declaration onPrinciples of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperationamong States,”15 and its 1974 “Definition of Aggression” Resolution,16 upheldthe legality of military occupation provided the force used to establish it wasnot in contravention of the UN Charter. These two resolutions are consideredto be based on customary law or on UN Charter principles. In the words ofProf. Rosalyn Higgins, “[t]here is nothing in either the Charter or generalinternational law which leads one to suppose that military occupation pendinga peace treaty is illegal.”17The preamble of this Security Council resolution denounces “the acquisition ofterritory by war,” but does not pronounce a verdict on the occupation under thecircumstances of 1967.18 It is revealing to compare the version finally adoptedwith the formula used in the draft submitted by India, Mali, and Nigeria: therethe relevant passage read that “[o]ccupation or acquisition of territory bymilitary conquest is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations.”19It is, therefore, of some significance that the version of the preamble finallyadopted, while reiterating the injunction against the acquisition of territory,offers no comment on military occupation. Consequently, it cannot be arguedthat the Security Council regarded Israel’s presence in these territories asillegal. As an act of self-defense,20 this military occupation was and continuesto be legitimate, until a peace settlement can be reached and permanentborders defined and agreed upon.21Other interpretations of the passage — suggesting, for example, that thepassage was intended to denounce any military occupation — contradict notonly its wording, but also the established rules of customary international law.Its form, its place in the preamble rather than in the body of the resolution,22and a comparison with the subsequent passages all clearly indicate its concernwith the implementation of existing norms rather than an attempt to createnew ones.