It has recently come to light that when the governemnt or police refuse to bring charges when a law is violated, citizens have the right to bring charges and a court is required to hear the case (this is reported to be happening in the case of the Moslem Wafk destrying Jeiwsh artifcats on the temple mount) the Israeli public should therefore bring charges against Olmert, Sharon, Ramon, and anyone else who is talking of giving land to our enemies before this innapolis conference begins!

Moaamer Gaddafi of Libya issued the "Law of Annexation of African and American countries" to the Great Libyan Jamahiria (Great Libyan People Rebublic) to form the US of Africa & America. Those acting against the "Law of Annexation" are liable to life imprisonment or the death penalty . The solution is easy: They are not Israelis who will commits an act calculated to bring about withdrawal "from the sovereignty of the State"; they ARE Arabs who are not subjected to the existing Israel's Law.

because there is always such a thing as "a period in which military actions are being conducted by Israel or against it."

Mr Sherman fails to point out that article 94 (of which artilce 97 (b) is subject to) of the Israel Penal Code implicitly provides a complete defence for a Governmental change to Israel's borders. Therefore no Government to date has "grossly violated" section 97as Mr Sherman states.

the criminal government.

Never, ever, trust politicians running for office. They do just the opposite of what they say. So it was with Bibi and, as we all know, with Ariel Sharon who was elected because of his RIGHTWING position and he made a 360 degree turn once he was elected as PM. Israel has the most two-faced prime ministers in the world.

Maybe, in the years to come, after thousands of innocent Jews are slaughtered as a result of the foolish acts of our leaders, Israeli Penal Code, Section 97(b), will be the basis for executing these men and women. The Jews will demand that they pay for their crimes. After all, the penal code deals with treasonous acts, giving aid to the enemy, does it not?

would be not to swop lands in order to reach a peace-agreement. Willingly taking int account the death of people in order to reach a goal is called negligent homicide, at best.

Luckily the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel, so lands swaps are not really needed and were only intended to allow some settlements to remain, but if the swaps of sovereign Israeli lands for areas Israel holds under belligerent occupation are illegal, just remove ALL the settlements and get completely out of the occupied territories instead.. The occupied Golan Heights and occupied East Jerusalem are also not of any concern as Israel's attempt to claim sovereignty over them is not recognized internationally and itself deemed illegal, so once Israel abides by international laws, the occupied Golan and East Jerusalem will no longer be Israel's concern as well. The Negev is where Israel's future lies, so rather than look for ways not to end the occupations and not to make peace; Israelis should be working on getting prepared to find permanent homes for Israel's occupation settlers once their tour of duty in occupied Palestine is over.

....however is #4 correct?

Lev, here's a small lesson regarding what occupation means. The legal definition of occupation requires two things: a) de jure sovereignty by a nation-state over a territory in question; and b) de facto sovereignty over that territory by another nation-state. The occupation of the Gaza Strip ended in 1979 when a peace deal brokered between Israel and Egypt resulted in Egypt renouncing sovereignty over the Gaza Strip. The occupation of the West Bank ended when the Jordanians renounced sovereignity over the West Bank in 1988 and stripped its inhabitants of their citizenship. The Golan Heights and the Sheba'a Farms, legally speaking, are the only territories under Israeli occupation according to the letter of international law. The only "Occupation Settlers" are the ones in the Golan. There is no "Occupied Palestine". There is no "Occupied East Jerusalem". The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are a political no-man's land. How can a military and a civilian presence in a political no-man's land be illegal? Please finish connecting the dots before using them to support your biased conclusions.

forever dont like it? tough

Sorry Joe, but both the International Court of Justice at The Hague (the ICJ) in its apartheid fence ruling and Israel's own High Court of Justice ruled in HCJ 2056/04 that Israel was in fact a belligerent occupier of the West Bank and Gaza, so I will have to take the word of the esteemed Judges of the courts over your personal opinion. UNSCR 242 also makes it clear that Israel was occupying those areas when it called for Israel to remove itself from land it "occupied" in the recent conflict (i.e. the 1967 war) so I don't think you have quite all your own dots connected.

God doesn't recognize international law. There is no such place as East Jerusalem, there is only Jerusalem. There is no such place as the West Bank, There is only Yudea and Shomron. There is also no such thing as a Palestinian so there can be no occupied palestinian territory. And by the way, God doesn't recognize Moscow either. Only Putinstan.

Article 94 translates roughly into the following: "An act will not be considered a violation according to this section if it reflects an act of GOOD FAITH or if it is committed in GOOD FAITH with the intention to bring about, IN WAYS THAT ARE NOT ILLEGAL, changes in the mode of operation of the state or any one of its organs, of a foreign state or one of its organs, or any institution or organization of states" Emphasis added We should therefore note that : 1. To invoke Article 94 one needs to (a) demonstrate "good faith" and (b) act "in ways are not illegal". 2. Article 94 relates to other articles (in addition to Article 97) such as: Aiding and abetting the enemy in war(99); Intention to commit treason (100); Serving in forces of the enemy (101); Helping enemy prisoners of war escape (102) ; Dissemination of subversive propaganda (103) This of course raises some intriguing questions: 1.How is one to reconcile "good faith" with acts of aiding and abetting the enemy in war; intending to commit treason; serving in enemy forces etc etc???? What does this entail for the validity of Article 94, its interpretation and scope? 2. While the legality (or lack there of) of certain UNSPECIFIED acts in the context of these articles may be debated, the act of "removing land from Israeli sovereignty" is a SPECIFIED action which has been designated illegal and carrying the heaviest of penalties. How then can any act of this kind be considered falling under the provisions of Article 94 as being "not illegal"?? 3. Surely the existence of "good faith" should be required to be demonstrated in court – unless ANY act in contravention of Article 97 is to be considered "in good faith"? And even if one might have assumed "good faith" in the heady days of the early 90s, how can one assume it today after decade and a half disastrous failure of the policy of transfer of land to non-Israeli control. Surely at some stage "good faith" must be considered "bad judgment" ? At minimum, should not proponents of territorial withdrawal be called upon to prove their "good faith" in court?

Silly piece. Deal with substance. When law ignores reality it is soon mocked and all suffer. This is like the medevil argument over how many angels can dance on a pinhead. In terms of legal formality, if you care, Israel has no constitution and therfore all laws are of equal weight. A law authorizing a trade would be equal to a law prohibiting it.

i am a jewish international american lawyer residing in chicago and israel . the points you came up with in your talkback is 100% accurate. as a matter of fact, these terrirtories are legally disputed only by arabs and the usa for various political reasons. international law supports your talkback fully. mr. bornstein has no clue as to what he is talking about. i truly doubt he has any clue as to the events in israel at all. dr. david hamerstein, jd chicago/israel

Martin Sherman is so desperate to thwart negotiations that he is now relying on laughable interpretations of the law and making pathetic threats of the death penalty against anyone that does not adopt his hateful views. That this passes for expert opinion is a sorry state of affairs.

Josh, I am not INTERPRETING the law only QUOTING it verbatim. Interpretation is only necessary is you wish to rationalize why it is PERMITTED to commit a deed that prime facie appears to be PROHIBITED by the letter of the law

The ICJ's description of Judea and Samaria as being under "belligerent occupation" can hardly count as a ruling. This term was merely used as a means of providing a background in explaining the case at hand. As such, even if a court were to rule it as being occupation per se, it would nevertheless have to conform the definition of occupation according to international law which I provided in talkback #12. If there is the slightest chance you are correct in calling "belligerent occupation" a ruling, the criteria for occupation, ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW (not my own humble opinion) have not been met and this "ruling" has no legal leg to stand on. As far as UNSCR 242 is concerned, it is dated from 1967, a time when the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were under occupation, according to international law. However, it is 2007 and Egypt and Jordan have renounced claims to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively. If you had read talkback #12, you would have gotten this through your skull. You can't avoid facts, logic and international law, Lev/Leb; these areas are no longer under occupation. Again, I ask you the same question I asked before, but you refused to answer: How can a military and civilian presence in a political no-man's land be illegal? Again, please finish connecting the dots before using them to support biased conclusions.

You are the kind of pathetic little Jew that brings historic shame to our people. I'd like to say you are worthless but that would be giving your contemptible Jewish arse too much credit. "Jewish International American Lawyer." How about a shyster lawyer?

Your posts reads: 18. #10 I am sorry if I misunderstood your post. You wrote #10's points are 100% correct. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. You wrote #10. If you meant #12, my apologies.

First I commend Dr. Martin Sherman for broaching this serious subject. 1. In 1996, Jerusalem-based attorney Howard Grief brought a petition before the High Court alleging that the Interim Agreement violated penal law sections 97, 99 and 100 in the areas of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and east Jerusalem. Attorney Grief wrote about the fate of that petition: "[T]he Court extricated itself from having to decide the legal issues on the merits by the expedient of calling the Petition 'a political position', thus automatically placing it outside its purview. However, any serious reading and study of the Petition will show that the exact opposite is the case." 2. On January 26, 1999, the "Administration and Law Arrangements Law" made territorial withdrawal legal for the first time from any area in the "State of Israel" with the approval of an absolute majority vote in the Knesset and a referendum, thereby removing east Jerusalem from the scope of the penal laws. Attorney Grief wrote: "The new law, however, does not apply to areas of the Land of Israel outside the formal borders of the State of Israel; hence, it does not apply to Judea, Samaria and Gaza. . . . As a result, a charge of treason could still be brought against Prime Minister Sharon for any withdrawal under the Disengagement Plan, despite the existence of the new law." 3. Then, in several cases starting in 2004, the High Court indeed ruled Judea and Samaria is held in "belligerent occupation." Attorney Grief wrote: "His judgments which bind the Government of Israel, unless overturned by legislation . . . ." Political Scientist Prof. Paul Eidelberg commented: "Can any of these prime ministers be brought before the Supreme Court for violating Section 97 or Section 100 of the Penal Law governing treason? No way! Under Israel's High Court of Justice treason has become legitimate! This is the logical consequence of the court's false and anti-Semitic ruling that Judea, Samaria, and Gaza do not belong as of right and law to the Jewish people." 4. In a stinging rebuke of the High Court's ruling, Attorney Grief wrote: "It is a hallmark of everlasting shame that our own Supreme Court fails to recognize our legal rights and title of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and believes these areas to be held under 'belligerent occupation'. In his judgment, Justice Barak presents no definition of the term 'occupation' and gives no reason why Judea and Samaria should be characterized under that term. He simply assumes that 'occupation' is an undisputed 'fact'. His judgment does not uphold the Rule of Law, as he so piously claims, but actually negates it. . . . " Attorney Grief concludes: "This shocking, illegal and exceedingly harmful judgment must not be allowed to stand! It must be overturned by appropriate Knesset legislation." Dr. Martin Sherman should bring this matter to the urgent attention of the Knesset so they can restore the democratic principle of the "rule of law". All documents cited can be furnished upon request. Notice any errors? Have any comments? Israel White Paper, israelwhitepaper@yahoo.com

are illegal too!!!! That's why the right say 'Oslo Criminals'. Rabin, Peres and Beilin broke the law instead of changing it.