Because doing so means your perspective is in question. However, when the UN requested the ICJ's advisory services, it presented a carefully worded request which already described the settlements as illegal and against intl law, and Israel as an occupier. The ICJ was asked to make a decision on THAT document, not on facts and agreements around the whole situation. Just that document, which it did, though it was biased and held no legal basis. That's all. Show us a real legally-binding decision made in a court of law, and you'll have something.

You state that my references take their position on settlements from the ICJ advisory opinion. That’s simply silly Willy. The international condemnation of the settlements predates the ICJ opinion by over twenty years: UN GA resolutions have condemned the settlements as violations of international law since the 1970’s ICRC has repeatedly condemned the settlements as a violation of the Geneva Convention since the late 1970’s United States: (21 April 1978) U.S. State Department determination that the settlements are illegal under international law UNSC 446 (22 Mar 1979) reaffirming application of Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements UNSC 465 (1 Mar 1980) unanimous condemnation of Israeli settlements as a “flagrant” breach of the Geneva Convention International Court of Justice, advisory opinion, 9 July 2004. So, Silly Willy, are you a liar, ignorant or simply a “true believer” incapable of distinguishing between verifiable facts and the fantasy world you inhabit? Unfortunately, you may soon get the kind of court decision you demand. The civilian settlement of occupied territories constitutes a war crime under ICC rules. Should Palestine request it, the ICC has the authority to investigate and prosecute Israelis as war criminals for settlement related activities.

FO, as I’ve already said (#52), you do NOT appear ignorant. But if you really think that the SC, ICJ, ICRC, U.S., EU, et al are deliberately perverting international law in order to “stick it to Israel,” then you are a “true believer” and, as Nietzsche might agree, you are beyond rational discourse. I prefer JFK who said myths, not lies, are the greater enemy of truth because “[b]elief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” You appear to be a victim of myths promulgated by both those who never accepted the UN’s right to spin-off Jordan and divide the remaining land between Palestinian-Jews and Palestinian Arabs and those who saw a pragmatic opportunity to expand Israel’s borders (and ostensibly improve its security) by changing the facts on the ground following the 1967 war. Myths that Israel is legally entitled to settle the territories usually assume that Israel was legally entitled to settle more land than it received under the partition plan, that the UN’s power over the occupied territory ended when it approved the partition, that the Palestinian-Arabs lost any rights to a separate state when they rejected that plan, and that the partition plan itself has no lasting legal significance. All of these beliefs are at odds with the facts under international law. What you refer to as “residual” land is part of the land that the UN assigned to the Palestinian Arabs for the eventual creation of their own state. It was militarily occupied by Jordan and Egypt and then by Israel. But it was always intended for the Palestinians by the UN. The UN was within its right to recognize the occupied territories as the State of Palestine. truth has consequences and we are facing them now. Like it or not, Israel will eventually recognize the State of Palestine on the land that it now call’s “disputed.” Any discomfort the truth causes you is the product of whatever “residual” part of your rationality is still functioning.

An advisory opinion is just that. It advises what the court WOULD rule IF the case were being litigated before it . In order to make such a ruling the court must first identify relevant laws and how they should generally apply. These "preconsiderations" provide statements about the law which are binding in the sense that it would be foolish for anyone to present arguments that contradicted them. Contrary to your assertion, the court did not just rubber stamp the GA's submission but looked at a "voluminous dossier" provided by the Secretary General, various international agencies, and Israel itself in its filing and official public statements. If my neighbor wanted to sue me and a Judge told me that I would most likely lose, I would rather negotiate with my neighbor than risk losing in court. If Israel goes before the ICC it WILL lose, our leaders will face international humiliation and Palestine's position will be immeasurably strengthened. Is that what you want Silly Willy?

An advisory opinion is just that. It advises what the court WOULD rule IF the case were being litigated before it . In order to make such a ruling the court must first identify relevant laws and how they should generally apply. These "pre-considerations" provide statements about the law which are binding in the sense that it would be foolish for anyone to present arguments that contradicted them. Contrary to your assertion, the court did not just rubber stamp the GA's submission but looked at a "voluminous dossier" provided by the Secretary General, various international agencies, and Israel itself in its filing and official public statements. If my neighbor wanted to sue me and a Judge told me that I would most likely lose, I would rather negotiate with my neighbor than risk losingin court. If Israel goes before the ICC it WILL lose, our leaders will face international humiliation and Palestine's position will be immeasurably strengthened. Is that what you want Silly Willy?

Ok, you prefer what JFK said. So let us talk about what I consider, YOUR myths: the 1947 UN partition Plan? It was a non- binding proposal, anyhow rejected by all Arab states. Another of your myths is saying that the UN was within its right to recognize the occupied territories as the State of Palestine. In fact the UN violated Article 80 of its own Charter. Those who introduced this article, including Bibi's late father, were not a bunch of idiots! They knew exactly why they were doing it. Another myth is of course accusing Israel in relation to Article 49. How could somebody base this accusation against Israel on the fact that Israel and Jordan were at war? (Read again my post # 51). And about Jordan, another myth or if you prefer a scandalous breach of Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine, as well as it is the case for the Golan Heights, both breaches perpetrated by the colonial power, Britain. About all that I never read a word written by you. I have got the feeling that you are somewhere selective about international decisions : what suit you and what doesn't. When I encounter somewhere that 2+2 = 3 or 5, but not 4, I think it is not only my right, but perhaps my duty to intervene, even if all the judges in the world are voting in favor of such cheating. How it has to be corrected, on a legal level worldwide (reference to Article 49) is unfortunately not within by humble power. There are certainly enough competent people to lead this battle. Anyhow, Balcony, I appreciated our written debate, and hope it has been followed by as much people as possible.

FO: “Another of your myths is saying that the UN was within its right to recognize the occupied territories as the State of Palestine. In fact the UN violated Article 80 of its own Charter.” Those who introduced this article, including Bibi's late father….knew exactly why they were doing it. With due respect to Bibi’s father, the intentions of the people who proposed Art 80 are irrelevant. It is the intentions and understandings of the countries who actually agreed to be bound by Art 80 that count. (I discount Rostow’s opinion precisely because none of the countries that voted for 242 agree with him.) Art.80 is only violated by UNGA 67/19 if one FIRST assumes Israel’s existing legal rights were adversely affected by upgrading Palestine’s status but that is precisely what is at issue –it cannot simply be assumed. No other country believes that Israel has the right to create settlements in the “disputed” territory, and the resolution does not change Israel’s borders, so how can Art 80 apply, much less be violated by the resolution? In order to reach your conclusion, one has to: completely ignore Israel’s acceptance of the Partition Plan (which forbids Arabs or Jews from settling in the other’s designated territory); discount the Mandate and Britain’s actions restricting Jewish settlement made under League authority; ignore the white papers including Churchill’s which was contemporaneous with San Remo; interpret “in” as meaning “in ALL of”; ignore the caveats protecting the rights of the existing non-Jewish population and ignore all of the actions, rulings and legal opinions of the GA, SC and ICJ and international community since 1948. Now THAT is what I call being disingenuously selective…or “myth-building.”

FO: “Another myth is of course accusing Israel in relation to Article 49. How could somebody base this accusation against Israel on the fact that Israel and Jordan were at war? … When I encounter somewhere that 2+2 = 3 or 5, but not 4, I think it is not only my right, but perhaps my duty to intervene, even if all the judges in the world are voting in favor of such cheating. “ The basis for the accusation is not Israel’s war with Jordan per se but Israel’s building of civilian settlements on territory to which it would otherwise not have had access or a palpable claim of possession. The ICJ explicitly bases its decision on the Geneva Convention’s “travaux preparatories” (explanatory working papers created while the convention was being written) and on interpretations of the Convention agreed upon by the State parties to the Convention in 1999 and adopted by the ICRC, GA and SC. This may be confusing but it is hardly “cheating.” If I think that people are adding 2+2 and getting 3 or 5 then I take a closer look at the numbers to see if I am misreading a “1” or a “3” for a “2.” And if everyone else in the world were to agree that 2+2=5 and 2+3=4 then I would start counting, one, two, three, five, four, six…. In passing, Article 49 is only one of numerous violations of international law cited against Israel by the ICJ.

FO, I welcome an opportunity to address your points in separate postings. FO: “So let us talk about what I consider, YOUR myths: the 1947 UN partition Plan? It was a non- binding proposal, anyhow rejected by all Arab states. “ If the plan were merely a non-binding proposal then what does it matter if the Arab states rejected it? And assuming you are right, where did Israel get the right to declare itself an independent state or the UN the right to accept that declaration, and what then were Israel’s borders? Your answers may force you to rethink your position. The partition plan changed the terms of the mandate. Under Art. 27 mandate changes required UN GA approval. The GA’s approval amended the mandate to call for creating two states. Britain’s improper behavior, SC impotence, the Arab’s rejection and the subsequent war made full implementation impossible but it did not change the legal principle upon which it was based : “the right to self-determination” –two states for two peoples. This principle is reflected in the caveat that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The right of self-determination is jus cogens and erga omnes meaning that it is non-breakable and binding upon all nations as are provisions of the Geneva Convention. So strong are such principles that any international treaty or agreement past, present or future that violates it, is null and void. (See Articles 53, 59, 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.)

FO: “And about Jordan, another myth or if you prefer a scandalous breach of Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine… perpetrated by the colonial power, Britain. About all that I never read a word written by you.” I believe that primary responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in today lies with Britain and the international community which tolerated or were complicit in Britain’s Mandate mismanagement and outright perfidy. (The Arab world also labored under a set of false promises and expectations and deliberate British incitement.) Nevertheless, I find no legal support for claims that Jordan was intended to be a part of the mandate in which a Jewish homeland was to be created. You refer to Article 5 but ignore Article 25 which specifically excludes territory to the East of the Jordan. Historically, Jordan was included in the Mandate by the British solely to keep it in their own hands. Scandalous behavior? You bet! Even the British admit it. But myth? The only myths I’m aware of is that Jordan was intended to be part of the Jewish homeland or a dumping ground for all Palestinian-Arabs.

F0: “I have got the feeling that you are somewhere selective about international decisions : what suit you and what doesn't.” I don’t pick and choose between differing decisions. I cite sources which carry the most weight in international law, e.g., SC resolutions, ICJ opinions and recognized customary law based on the established state practices and laws of the majority of states. I don’t know of a single decisions supporting the settlements by any international tribunal or national legal system outside of Israel. Look for yourself. I don’t cite lawyer’s partisan opinions; being a lawyer myself, I know how worthless such opinions are in the real world. I do cite Theodore Meron because his was a confidential report prepared on behalf of the Israeli government and shows that Israel has known since 1967 that building civilian settlements in the occupied territories was legally problematic. The fact that Meron has not changed his mind over forty years later and after becoming an international criminal judge also adds some weight to his opinion. As I indicate in reply#2, those who argue for the legality of the settlements have far more need to be selective in their references than I do. I hope my responses are helpful.

Actually, I think people on every side of the arguments would claim that they accept UNSCR 242 and 338 although their understandings of the meanings are radically different. Obviously, people who are pro-settlement reject or ignore UNSCR 446 and 465; esp. 465 which callls the settlements a "flagrant" violation of the Geneva Convention and demands that Israel stop building and start demlishing.