If your sir, armchair expert , living in comfortable soft life in Norway...ever had the misfortune to be burdened as the Israelis are ...YOU WOULD HAVE NO IDEA as to how to deal with it EITHER. They would kill you Mr Pacificist , just as quickly as any other "infidel". Your comments are vile, as with other Israel detractors,just cloaked anti-semetism under the guise of genuine' concern for the human rights of others, while ignoring the barbarism they themselves commit on a daily basis. Total BS. Sorry for you, its YOUR day coming. radical Islam will overtake your part of the world and subjugate you and EVERYTHING you hold dear. WAKE YOURSELF!

It is hard to fathom what goes on in the mind of Mr. Rubinstein, unless it is professional guilt at having to exercise a role of protection to the citizens of Israel. He does not give us any alternative to the need for exercising control, not occupation, of a population of enemies of the state of Israel, until such a time that they decide that they want to live in peace. No other sensible solution is in sight and his self-hating suggestions are not acceptable.

You're right that no one and no people can escape (divine) justice. But there are many aspects of my people you don't know or see, but the divne providence is fully aware of all our aspects. When yours learn to pray for the wellbeing of jews and time when jews and non-jews can live in peace together, then you can be assured of a better fate than that you wish for the jewish people. I do not underestimate your suffering and i and many other jews can fully relate with it. Some of us are outcasts, as a result. But inspite of the suffering we have experienced from yours on many occasions, our sincere desire is not revenge but simply that an ear of true social justice will emerge that is benificial to both yours and mine. We've kept a sacred religious heritage alive that at its very heart has this goal in mind. Not a seldifh self-aggrandizing goal but a humanisitc goal. Our ancestors have paid a heavyprice to keep this vison alive of all of humanity living in justice and peace. While some non-jews yours humiliated and killed them, they prayed and continue to do so, 3 times a day and on special days even 4 and five times, for that new era of prosperity for yours and mine. Generations were and continue to be taught religious principles that ultimately will perfect theoir actions, in time, and help bring about a socially just world not only for us but for you too. At tthat time you'll understand that by divine decree jews have carried the heavy burden of being the sacrificie for humanity and a better world. Some have (naturally) tired of this role and hence the events that have caused you suffering. And yes there are consequences for our errors but there are also consequences for our positive efforts, including paying with blood to hold on to a religious tradition that at its heart has ONLY the best interest of humanity without the need to convert or humiliate or torturing others to see our point of view, as has sadly been the way non-jews have been prepared to treat us. I say this without a little bitterness. But really when have your people prayed for my people that we find peace and that we fulfill the sacred trust placed on us by our ancestors. Many of us pray for you and work for your good even when you hate us, and even while vulnerable to yours. Seek divine mercy for yours and mine, that is the only way forward. Otherwise, you might be surprised at how counterproductive your selective wish for justice against the jewish people is, without even really knowing us in all our diversity and experiences. While ignoring the fact that your sins might be greater than ours, and that it isn't a human tribunal that will judge but a divine one, that knows all the facts. I do not minimise your pain and i do not condone injustice done by mine. But i hope you will do like we do, and pray and work towards peaceful coexistence of our peoples in a socially just environment, b'cos no one is without guilt. shabbat shalom

Unlike you I have done more than my time in this so-called 'occupation'. The fact is the Arabs occupy our land and unless they go back to their own countries we have to deal with them. Second you state the economists are blind, I say you are blind. How much MORE would it cost if the Arabs were free to launch their rockets at BG or Tel-Aviv? A lot more than you think. In short it is a stupid article written by a very stupid person.

If Arabs had won 67 war, Jews would not be living under Arab occupation. They would kill and throw us all into the sea and no Arabs in the world would be sitting and crying for our hardship under "Arab occupation". No one can occupy the land of a dead people. Maybe we should have done the same as Arabs wanted to do to us when they were offended by the mere fact that we were living and ganged up against us in order to "throw us all into the sea". but we let them back into their villages, gave them education, health services, democracy and the same rights of Jews living in Israel while they still talk about hating us and planning to kill us all . Now we are sitting and crying becuase we are sorry they and their Arab brothers from neighboring countries weren't victorious in the war they waged against us and didn't succede in throwing us all into the sea. We are sorry that we are not living under their "occupation".

I think most of the talkbacks miss the point. The question is not whether the occupation is moral, immoral but necessary, or immoral and unnecessary. Although perhaps the author invited this with some of his over the top rhetoric. But he has a good point in saying that if Israel is going down this path, it should ensure that all those serving in the army should have some "hands on" duty. I think that, both on the left and right, Israelis can agree that they should maintain the IDF as a people's army, and not create a bunch of full time soldiers doing the hard work with reservists just pushing papers.

True believers like Rubinstein are using denial as a way of dealing with the unsolvable Palestinian problem. For people like them, maintaining some kind of control over the situation is important. So, they convince themselves that their side has the power to make things better and they latch onto the mantra of "occupation" as the cause of the violence. They also fantasize that ending the occupation will bring peace. Unfortunately, Rubinstein and his fellow true believers ignore history, and the facts on the ground in order to continue their beliefs. Rubinstein ignores the terrorist base that Gaza has become since Israel evacuated. once again, to justify their beliefs, they ignore the real danger of terrorism and insist that Gaza's problems are caused by the checkpoints and the sealing off of Gaza from Israel. They ignore the fact that Gaza is not sealed off as it shares a border with Egypt. They also cannot grasp the fact that there would be no checkpoint problems if the Palestinians stopped the terrorists. Although the population is impoverished, the true believers like Rubinstein cannot come to grips with the fact that billions of dollars in foreign aid has been either stolen or used by the terrorists to kill other Palestinians and the Israelis. They cannot acknowledge the fact that many terrorists are brainwahed robots rather than impoverished and desparate people. They can't acknowledge this because it would make them realize that Israel is not in control of attaining peace no matter what it does since there is no constituency among the Palestinians that are powerful enough to make peace.

It's EASY not to know what one's government is doing. So much is done in secret and under false pretenses (you know, like the war against Iraq, or the coup of Mossadeq in Iran back in 1953). The philosophy of DECEPTION rules in our governments - not just the Palestinian government but the US and Israeli and even the Canadian government. Our media feeds us all kinds of propaganda, misinformation, lies of omission, distorted and partial "truths"! The government repeats their version of a story a few times and it becomes the accepted version of reality. Just look at the numbers of Americans who still believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. It's easy to control and manipulate people using religion and patriotism. Trying to control people with force like Israel tries to control the Palestinians in the Territories, backfires if one wants to establish a peaceful relationship with the opposition. Collective punishments provoke anger and resentment in innocent victims, and help transform them into radicals, into active resisters. Nevertheless, use of violent force might be successful in eliminating the "enemy" by killing them off or pressuring them to escape. Collective punishments, building more settlements, destruction of orchards and homes, putting the wall on Palestinian land etc etc all belie Israel's talk of wanting peace with the Palestinians in the Territories. Actions speak louder and any talk of peace becomes merely empty words. I like Ariel Rubinstein's programme for teaching about the Occupation!

tell these lies to someone else, sir. Arab leaders never wanted peace and you Iranins are the ones behind all the terrorism in the world. Hizbolah and Hamas get their orders and money and arms from Iranian mullas (who buy it from Russia and china) becuase they want Islam to control the whole world. There were WMD in Iraq, or maybe when Iraqis bombed your own soldiers with chemical weapons you were sleeping. Israel treats its Arab population better than Iranian dictators treat their own people. Enough Arab and Iranian leaders' encouraging Palestinian terrorism for their own benefit.

but sure they are so little in this middle east

"you Iranins are the ones behind all the terrorism in the world" My what a generalization! Provide some evidence for that broad statement. On the other hand, maybe Iran would be a democratic country if Mossadeq had been allowed to remain in power as a democratically elected prime minister, a western educated intelligent man. But no, the Brits and the Yanks had to stage a coup in 1953 and remove him from power....and all because of oil. The nerve of Mossadeq wanting to keep some of the oil money in Iran for the Iranians. AND where do you get this "you Iranins" -- you calling me Iranian??? Not me! Not Arab, nor Jewish, nor Muslim, nor Christian. Just a social activist and human being feeling compassion for the oppressed! I'm starting to agree more and more with Richard Dawkins that Religion is the Root of a lot of evil in our world!

What goes around comes around.

Professor Julius Stone was one of the world’s best-known authorities in both jurisprudence and international law. His 26 major works include the authoritative texts Legal Controls of International Conflict, Aggression and World Order, The International Court and World Crisis and the Province and Function of Law. http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf The Self-Defence Principle The basic precept of international law concerning the rights of a state victim of aggression, which has lawfully occupied the attacking state’s territory in the course of self-defence, is clear. And it is still international law after the Charter, which gave to the UN General Assembly no power to amend this law. This precept is that a lawful occupant such as Israel is entitled to remain in control of the territory involved pending negotiation of a treaty of peace. Both Resolution 242 (1967) and Resolution 338 (1973), adopted by the Security Council after respective wars of those years, expressed this requirement for settlement by negotiations between the parties, the latter in those words. Conversely both the Security Council and the General Assembly in 1967 resisted heavy Soviet and Arab pressures demanding automatic Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 frontiers. Through the decade 1967-1977, Egypt and her Arab allies compounded the illegality of their continued hostilities by proclaiming the slogan “No recognition! No Peace! No negotiation!” thus blocking the regular process of international law for post-war pacification and settlement… Israel's territorial rights after 1967 are best seen by contrasting them with Jordan's lack of such rights in Jerusalem and the West Bank after the Arab invasion of Palestine in 1948. The presence of Jordan in Jerusalem and elsewhere in cis-Jordan from 1948 to 1967 was only by virtue of her illegal entry in 1948. Under the international law principle ex iniuria non oritur ius she acquired no legal title there. Egypt itself denied Jordanian sovereignty; and Egypt never tried to claim Gaza as Egyptian territory. By contrast, Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence. International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in the case of Israel's self-defence in 1967, the entry on the territory was lawful. It does not so forbid it, in particular, when the force is used to stop an aggressor, for the effect of such prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy. There is no such rule…. International law, therefore, gives a triple underpinning to Israel's claim that she is under no obligation to hand back automatically the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan or anyone else. In the first place, these lands never legally belonged to Jordan. Second, even if they had, Israel's own present control is lawful, and she is entitled to negotiate the extent and the terms of her withdrawal. Third, international law would not in such circumstances require the automatic handing back of territory even to an aggressor who was the former sovereign. It requires the extent and conditions of the handing back to be negotiated between the parties.

SOVEREIGNTY IN JERUSALEM The Partition Plan of 1947 envisaged an international Jerusalem, separated from both Israel and the then proposed Palestinian State. During the 1948 war, East Jerusalem (which includes the holy places of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the old city) came into Jordanian hands; and Jordan claimed sovereignty. In 1967, after Jordan launched an attack on West Jerusalem, the whole of Jerusalem came under Israeli rule; and Israel claimed sovereignty over a united Jerusalem. Professor Stone examines the legal principles which apply, and considers the analysis of Professor Elihu Lauterpacht, the distinguished editor of the authoritative “Oppenheim’s International Law”. The agreements implementing the Oslo Accords provide that Jerusalem is one of the issues to be considered in the permanent status negotiations, and failure to reach agreement on the sharing of administration in Jerusalem was one of the reasons for the failure to conclude a permanent status agreement at Camp David II and at Taba in 2000. In the absence of such agreement, however, sovereignty over Jerusalem under international law remains as described by Stone. The Effect of the Partition Plan Elihu Lauterpacht concludes, correctly that the 1947 partition resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. Any binding force of it would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda, that is, from the agreement of the parties concerned to the proposed plan. Such an agreement, however, was frustrated ab initio by the Arab rejection, a rejection underlined by armed invasion of Palestine by the forces of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia, timed for the British withdrawal on May 14, 1948, and aimed at destroying Israel and at ending even the merely hortatory value of the plan… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control. At most, as Israel's Declaration of Independence expressed it, the General Assembly resolution was a recognition of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people in Palestine. The immediate recognition of Israel by the United States and other states was in no way predicated on its creation by the partition resolution, nor was its admission in 1949 to membership in the United Nations… As a mere resolution of the General Assembly, Resolution 181(11) lacked binding force ab initio. It would have acquired the force under the principle pacta sunt servanda if the parties at variance had accepted it. While the state of Israel did for her part express willingness to accept it, the other states concerned both rejected it and took up arms unlawfully against it. The Partition Resolution thus never became operative either in law or in fact, either as to the proposed Jerusalem corpus separatum or other territorial dispositions in Palestine.

The Corpus Separatum Concept We venture to agree with the results of the careful examination of the corpus separatum proposal by E. Lauterpacht in his monograph Jerusalem and the Holy Places: “(1) During the critical period of the changeover of power in Palestine from British to Israeli and Arab hands, the UN did nothing effectively to implement the idea of the internationalization of Jerusalem. (2) In the five years 1948-1952 inclusive, the UN sought to develop the concept as a theoretical exercise in the face of a gradual realization that it was acceptable neither to Israel nor to Jordan and could never be enforced. Eventually the idea was allowed quietly to drop. (3) In the meantime, both Israel and Jordan demonstrated that each was capable of ensuring the security of the Holy Places and maintaining access to and free worship at them - with the exception, on the part of Jordan, that the Jews were not allowed access to Jewish Holy places in the area of Jordanian control. (4) The UN by its concern with the idea of territorial internationalization, as demonstrated from 1952 to the present date (1968) effectively acquiesced in the demise of the concept. The event of 1967 and 1968 have not led to its revival. (5) Nonetheless there began to emerge, as long ago as 1950, the idea of functional internationalization of the Holy Places in contradistinction to the territorial internationalization of Jerusalem. This means that there should be an element of international government of the City, but only a measure of international interest in and concern with the Holy Places. This idea has been propounded by Israel and has been said to be acceptable to her. Jordan has not subscribed to it.” Even if no notion of a corpus separatum had ever floated on the international seas, serious questions about the legal status of Jerusalem would have arisen after the 1967 War. Did it have the status of territory that came under belligerent occupation in the course of active hostilities, for which international law prescribes a detailed regime of powers granted to the occupying power or withheld it from in the interest of the ousted reversionary sovereign? Or was this status qualified in Israel's favour by virtue of the fact that the ousted power, in this case, Jordan, itself had occupied the city in the course of an unlawful aggression and therefore could not, under principle of ex iniuria non oritur ius, be regarded as an ousted reversioner? Or was Jerusalem, as we will see that a distinguished authority thought at the time, in the legal status of res nullius modo juridico? That is, was it a territory to which by reason of the copies of international instruments, and their lacunae, together with the above vice in the Jordanian title, no other state than Israel could have sovereign title? The consequence of this could be to make the legal status of Jerusalem that of subjection to Israel sovereignty.

This idiot is a garden-variety leftwing Israeli academic, naturally.

Acquisition of Sovereignty This analysis, based on the sovereignty vacuum, affords a common legal frame for the legal positions of both West and East Jerusalem after both the 1948-49 and the 1967 wars. In 1967, Israel's entry into Jerusalem was by way lawful self-defence, confirmed in the Security Council and General Assembly by the defeat of Soviet and Arab-sponsored resolutions demanding her withdrawal… Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel. His view is that when the partition proposals were immediately rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression, those proposals could not, both because of their inherent nature and because of the terms in which they were framed, operate as an effective legal re-disposition of the sovereign title. They might (he thinks) have been transformed by agreement of the parties concerned into a consensual root of title, but this never happened. And he points out that the idea that some kind of title remained in the United Nations is quite at odds, both with the absence of any evidence of vesting, and with complete United Nations silence on this aspect of the matter from 1950 to 1967?… In these circumstances, that writer is led to the view that there was, following the British withdrawal and the abortion of the partition proposals, a lapse or vacancy or vacuum of sovereignty. In this situation of sovereignty vacuum, he thinks, sovereignty could be forthwith acquired by any state that was in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means. On the merely political and commonsense level, there is also ground for greater tolerance towards Israel's position, not only because of the historic centrality of Jerusalem to Judaism for 3,000 years, but also because in modern times Jews have always exceeded Arabs in Jerusalem. In 1844 there were 7,000 Jews to 5,000 Moslems; in 1910, 47,000 Jews to 9,800 Moslems; in 1931, 51,222 Jews to 19,894 Moslems; in 1948, 100,000 Jews to 40,000 Moslems, and in 1967 200,000 Jews to 54,902 Moslems.

Israel radical left academics and groups of zealots whine about Israel "occupation" of Palestinian territory. How short is the memory of homicide bombings, Qassam rockets launching. Israel did a gesture to the Palestinians by disengaging from Gaza. The anti Israel crowd says "yes, you left Gaza, but you put Palestinians in a ghetto." Israel is bad no matter what Israel is doing. Olmert came to power on a mandate of peace, but this was viewed by Palestinians as a weakness, and the rest is history. The zealots want to destroy Israel. They have no peace plan that is realistic, they ignore chronically Palestinian terror, corruption, radical Islam and Palestinian population explosion. Indeed, 70 percent of Palestinians prefer Israel "occupation" over Palestinian anarchy. Radical Israeli are occupied by the thought that "if only we would be nice to the Palestinians, abolish occupation than peace will come." History of this type of naivety proved to be very expensive to the naive.

How ironic. The body of Israelis most left wing and opposed to the "occupation" is the body of Israeli academics. That those most in agreement with these Brit "academics" are the very people boycotted shows just how unacademic and bankrupt these Britain university faculty truly are. This is not only blind, deaf, and dumb Jew hate, it indicates a clear danger to university students in Britain - by this vote, many UK teachers have proven their incompetence.

Thanks for the new ( for me that is ) website. Your talkback is well reseached and unassailable. Since there can be no viable response you should expect personal attacks on you and your source. As Mr. T you to say " I pity the fool!!! " Great job Mark from Georgia

on par with US excuse of "self-defence" when they attacked Iraq! Israel's security wasn't in danger from the neighbouring Arabs any more than Israel's existence is in danger from the Palestinians. Palestinians have MORE to fear from Israelis on a daily basis than Israelis have to fear from Palestinians.

"Be sure mr. Ariel Rubinstein that that day is coming, no doubt about and I look forward to witness it. You know it, I know it. " And I will look forward to witnessing the day when your very own peace loving and humaneterian muslim immigrants will turn on you...that day is already just around the corner. In france, the UK and Sweden the supporters of the Philistine Palestinians are strating to finally getting their just deserts from radical muslims...and they will experience worse terror than those experienced by Israelis!!

supporters. Rubenstein is no exception...just look at the support he is getting from Michael #19

I've been waiting while for a post like this, so that I can prove you just how wrong you are. Let me walk you through the chain ove events that preceeded and immediately followed Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt on June 6th 1967. Next Egypt's 'President' Nasser recieves permission from USSR Premier Khruscheiv to attack and destroy Israel. Next, he enters into open military alliances with Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. At this point we have a compined Arab army several hundreds of thousands strong against an Israel with no standing army at all (all in reserves). Keep in mind also that at this point Gaza and the west bank are occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively, so Israel is in a dismal strategic position. During the spring of 1967 Nasser takes every opportunity to tout the coming destruction of Israel (in telivised speeches very remencient of those made by Ahmedinijaind toda) and even goes so far as to name the general who will lead the assault. At the end of spring a top-secret memo is circulated through the Soviet high-command reading approximately the following: pan-Arab invasion of Israel expected day to day; Israel's life-expectancy is 3-5 days (one of those who recieved and later reported this memo in his writings is Soviet strategist Victor Suvorov). June 3: Nasser blockades Israeli shipping, which besides being an act of war is also a violation of the agreement under which the Sinai was returned to Egypt after the 1957 war (which began as a result of an Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping) and moves two divisioins (ten thousand men) to the Egypt-Israel border. In response Israel secretly calls up its reserves over the next three days. Several hours before Israel launches its preemptive strike, it sends a message to Jordan's King Hussein saying that the coming war was an affair between itself and Egypt and it has no intention or desire to go to war with Jordan. Hussein respnds that he has already commited himself to the coming invasion and cannot back out. On the morning of June sixth Israel launches a massive areal attack on the massed Egyptian forces, followed immediately by a ground push into Gaza and the Sinai, destroying or routing most of Egypt's army. Jordan responds by opening artillery fire against Israel. Israeliplanes from the sinai raid circle and take out Jordan's airforce, and ground troops push into East Jerusalem, where they meet resistence from combined Palestinian and Jordanian forces. Syria and lebanon enter the war in the latter days, but with the main power, Egypt, knocked out they don't last long. Oh, and just for your information as soon as the ar ended Israel offered to return all captured territory in return for peace treaties, but the offer was categorically rejected Have a nice day.

and sinker. You forget to mention that we don't want to "occupy" anybody. We want secure borders and peace and are willing to do really stupid things to achieve that end. Yet, the enemy refuses to accept us or coexist peacefully with us. They have NO RIGHTS as long as they are at war with us. People like you have completely lost sight of the fact that the Palis were "occupied by the Egyptians and Jordanians long before we hit the scene and their plight was never taken up by you or any of their Muslim "brothers." This is all about the elimination of the "Zionist Entity" and their humiliation at not being able to do so. Using your logic, we should just throw in the towel; give them any territory they want, don't worry about the security of our citizens, open the checkpoints and let all of them in, don't respond to terror attacks, let them attack us at will and cut our own throats to make sure they have a happy fulfilling life. What planet do you live on anyway?

Therapy exists for people suffering from psychopathology like you. Just get informed.

I agree with many of the writers here that since you didn't really address the fact that Arabs were killing Jews for a 1000 years I can't see how this latest excuse is different. I wish you were right, but I just don't think you are. #53; Since you are afraid to post any name I'll just adress you as Chicken. OK, Chicken your post is laughable even most Arabs agree that 1967 was started by the 5 Arab states ( Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia ) although 11 Arab countries actually took part in the attacks on Israel. It Really Was A Humiliating Defeat For The Arabs. So, Chicken please stop drinking the kool-aid or at least learn to read. Submitted for your approval Mark from Georgia

It is not my analysis, these are fragments from link I posted, and I am sorry to say I have never heard any Israeli official mentioning this important LEGAL document. But then again, Time magazine's person of the year was the net surfer, the talkbacker, the human being armed with a computer. Thanks again.