I don't have to define occupation, it's already defined in the Geneva Convention under art 4. You High Court of Justice has already recognized that definition as has every other country in the world besides Israel.

..questions. If we are supposed to take you seriously you need to answer these questions. You still haven't answered my questions.

Do you also blame that on Guy Bechor or did it slip your mind? My three questions are: 1) WHO are you to judge us? 2) Was there any "Palestinian" state before and during the outbreak of the Six Day War in 1967? Yes or no will do. Make sure you ANSWER my question. 3) HOW do you define the word "occupation"? Can an "occupation" occur if a state conquers the territory that does not belong to any state? You dodge my question by saying: "I don't have to define occupation, it's already defined in the Geneva Convention under art 4. You High Court of Justice has already recognized that definition as has every other country in the world besides Israel. " You haven't answered my three questions. You deliver no proof and no arguments - just empty statements and claims. How about occupations going on in Tibet by China and in Western Sahara by Morocco? If you have nothing to hide then by all means - answer. Fine - refer to the Geneva Convention's definition of occupation and prove to me that there was a "Palestinian" state prior to and during the 1967 war. What prime minister or president, government, capital, parliament or supreme court did the "Palestinians" have before 1967? And again: WHO are you to judge us?

1. What you call the '67 line is a misnomer for the 1948 line. Israel never declared the post '67 war lines as a border and tried to give back much of it. To revise the nomenclature: The 1948 line is not and never was a border. This is also according to the insistence of the arabs immediately after the 1948 war. The 1948 lines were armistice lines only. 2. And if you are looking at only after 1928, why do you not comment on Jordan's takeover of the WB and part of Jerusalem in 1948, kicking the Jewish civilians out and importing arabs to take their place; these same arabs that stated then that they are Jordanians, not Palestinians. An official of the PA reiterated recently that "Palestinian" is a political construct in the diplomatic war against Israel. 3. The status of the settlements is in question; not legal, not illegal, as are the territories. These territories are correctly referred to as "disputed territories" (referenced as such by attorneys well versed in international law). 4. Care to comment about the "treaties" you mention after WW2? 5. Facts, John, facts.

I answered questions 1 and 2 in my response to #58 part 1. Guy Becher will not print it. I answered question 3 in my response to #58 continued. When there is no level playing field don't blame me. I have had 5 of my responses to yours and others questions not printed because of censorship. Complain to Guy Becher not me. As for your question 3 read the Geneva Convention article 4 in the 4th Geneva Convention. Your own High Court of Justice recognizes you as a belligerant occupier based on the fact that you are militarily occupying a civilian population which is outside your legal borders. That act makes them protected persons and you an occupier.

Ask Guy Becher to print my responses to questions 1 and 2. There is nothing more I can do.

The 67' borders I am referring to are the post 67' war borders which are not your legal borders. The 1948 borders I am referring to are the declared borders upon statehood declaration. I would never say Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was legal anymore than your annexation of Jerusalem or the Golan was legal. None of them are legal. If the territories were "disputed" why would the Israeli High Court say in a 2005 ruling that none of the territory acquired in the 1967 war was Israeli land and that Israel held the land in belligerant occupation. What exactly do you want me to comment about the WW2 treaties? What is your point?

A. The 1948 lines are armistice lines, NOT borders. Part of Armistice Agreement, as insisted to by the arabs: 5(2). In no sense are the cease-fire lines to be interpreted as political or territorial borders and their delineation in no way affects the rights, demands or positions of any of the parties to the cease-fire agreements regarding the final disposition of the Palestine question. 5(3). The fundamental objective of the cease-fire lines is to serve as a line beyond which the armed forces of each of the parties will deploy. See: http://208.84.118.121/pf_1948to1967_land_1948.php B. In UNSCR 242 withdrawal from the territories was conditional on a negotiated peace, rejected by the Arab states in accordance with the Khartoum Resolution. C. You made it a point that gaining land as a result of war has been illegal and noted that Germany, Japan and Italy lost land in a peace treaties (mutually agreed to with the allies). Actually, the "mutually agreed to" peace treaties were dictated by the allies after defeating their enemies.

The armistice took place on July 20,1949. Israel accepted the terms of UNGAR 181 and declared independence in 1948 based on the UNGAR 181 deliniated borders. They are to this day the only internationally recognized legal borders for Israel and are the basis for 162 countries diplomatically recognizing Israel. What does UNSC res 242 have to do with Illegal Israeli settlements? The answer is nothing. If simply dictating to your vanquished enemies produced a peace treaty why hasn't Israel, after decades, made peace with the Palestinians? The US gave $billions in reconstruction funds to Germany , Japan and Italy after the war. Besides war criminals, they released all axis prisoners. All military occupation ended after a few years. The end product was clearly mutually agreed to and not simply dictated. Israel's settlement policy is effectively dictating a preordained territorial solution which for decades has been rejected by the Palestinians and the entire Arab world.

ARE YOU GOING TO PRINT MY RESPONSE TO # 68?

A. In terms of international law the borders are only a temporary cease fire line. The are also known as interim borders or a demarcation line. It is the "recognized" boundary as such was needed for international nomenclature. It's legal status did not change, however. B. In UNSCR 242 withdrawal from the territories was conditional on a negotiated peace. Arabs know that Israel will withdraw as they withdrew from Gaza and much of the WB (with 'spectacular' results). They knew the settlements would be under discussion when they signed Oslo. And Israel had settlements in the WB before 1948 (and after 1928), such as Gush Etzion, West Jerusalem, etc.) that should also be part of the discussions. C. In WW2 the Axis was defeated. They agreed to the stipulations as they had to. They wanted to defeat their enemies and lost. As they value life, they capitulated. The arabs want to kill their enemies and will not rest until they do. They value death (shaheeds). Every time they come close to an agreement with Israel, they turn and run the other way. Israel has made many offers. The arabs have made none. D. You have it backwards. ARAB policy is effectively dictating a preordained territorial solution. They want what they want, no compromises. Abass has even said that they will not give up on their demands even after a peace treaty is signed. [What kind of "peace treaty" is that?!]. E. Because something has been rejected by the "Pals" and the entire arab world (but not the entire world) may well show its' merit. Hamas is part of that world and states it's aim as utterly destroying Israel and killing the Jews.

I am not sure myself how postings are selected, but from what I have read from other posters it seems an author (ie Guy Bechor) is not involved in the selection. It may be done by individuals, a computer, or some combination of the two.

The Arab states rejected outright any negotiations with the Jewish state. At Khartoum, Sudan, in the summer of 1967, the Arab states unanimously adopted their famous 'three nos': no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiation with Israel concerning any Palestinian territory

Your history lesson of WWII is nothing more than expressing your opinion and does not change international law. If borders are agreed to in a peace treaty they are legal. Israel annexing Jerusalem and the Golan and effectively annexing the corridor to Jerusalem by continuing its settlement policy is illegal and a violation of international law, period.

If I have it backwards why did Israel agree to UNSC res 242 which reaffirms the international legal principal of not acquiring land through war?

And now we have an updated Three No's via Abbass: 1. No giving up on their demands even after a peace treaty is signed. [!?] 2. No recognition of a Jewish state. 3. No change in children's education standards. [ie no change in teaching children to become shaheeds and kill Jews; this includes using Mickey Mouse to teach. Changing the curriculum was a stipulation in the Oslo Accords. The "Pals" always said they will do it...but never did. It is obvious now that they had no intention of living up to the agreement.]

With respect to your item #2 "No recognition of a Jewish state", Does the US formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state as opposed to simply diplomatically recognizing you as a country? Does the US recognize Jerusalem as your capital? Do they maintain an embassy there? Does any country recognize you as a Jewish state? Does any country maintain an embassy in Jerusalem? Based on your requirements for peace you should be cutting off diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.

First you say that if borders are agreed to, they are legal. Then you say that annexation is not legal. Are borders that are "agreed to" as a result of military defeat (ie conquered) legal? Many would say no, many would say yes. In either case, there needs to be more than one nation involved. Resolution 242 applied only to existing states. "Palestine" is not a nation and never was. The word "Palestinian" did not even appear in 242.

You agree then that Israel’s borders with Lebanon, Syria and what was Transjordan are not legal borders. Neither are those of North and South Korea, and other places on earth where war is still being officially declared.

UNSCR 242 does NOT state withdrawal from “all” territories. It also states “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." One must go hand in hand with the other. Revision of boundaries was recognized. In addition, it was placed in the preamble and not in the operative paragraphs. There is a ruling of the International Court of Justice (from the dispute over Danzig) that preambles of League of Nations resolutions are not binding – only the operative parts of these resolutions can create legal responsibilities. This determination carried over from the era of the League of Nations to that of the United Nations.

International law draws the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor. In drafting its preamble, the architects of Resolution 242 were referring to known international legal principles that precluded territorial modifications as a result of aggression. The preamble talks about "acquisition of territory by war." The case of a war of self-defense in response to aggression is a very different matter. The preamble of Resolution 242 was a compromise that took into account the other drafts that were before the Security Council, even though it did not really apply to Israel's case. And by keeping it in the preamble and not in the operative parts of the resolution, the architects of Resolution 242 avoided creating any legal obligations for Israel that could be construed as precluding the resolution's call for new "secure and recognized boundaries" beyond the earlier 1967 lines.

Period.

The reason I am responding in multiple parts to the same item is that ideally at least some of my answers may be published. Since everything you write is published please refrain from this format since each of your answers requires a multiple response.I assumed you figured out this is not a level playing field. I gave you the correct legal answer. If you don't like it take it up with the World Court. Resolution does not only apply to states because the PLO accepted 242 at Oslo and both Israel and the PLO signed Oslo. Judge Higgins in the 2004 ICJ ruling on settlements and the fence explained "from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council Resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same - that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State."[25]

I don't agree with Jordan because in 1994 they gave up all rights to the West Bank hence their legal Western border is the Jordan River. I don't agree with South Korea because the armistice line is the same as their old, original border. I don't agree with Syria because they have legal borders but a portion of their land is occupied by Israel. I don't agree with Lebanon for the same reason if we assume that Sheba Farms is Lebonese.

Preamble indicates the intent of the drafters. Nothing prevents a 1 to 1 land swamp assuming both parties agree. In this case it's irrelevant if it was in the preamble since gaining territory as a result of war is a violation of international common law,the UN Charter and the Kellogg Briand treaty.

You are very wrong, international law draws no distinction on the acquisition of territory by war (defensive or otherwise.) Judge Stephen Schwebel,a former Judge with the World Court, attempted to draw a distinction in a legal treatise which is contrary to a 2004 World Court ruling by 15 sitting judges, the UN Charter, international common law and the Kellogg Briand treaty. No where in any of those does it say a defensive war allow a victor to seize territory. Look at the maps drawn by three of the last four PM"s on proposed land swaps and its obvious this has nothing to do with secure borders.

I hope all my prior responses are printed but given the playing field ,i doubt they will. I am not going to respond to any more of your comments since this one sided format is basically to frustrating to deal with.