Chaim, again, international law is not produced by the academic arguments of individual lawyers, not by Rostow, not by Stone and certainly not by me. International law is a product of the practices and agreements between nations and the organizations that they have created for that purpose. In this context, you can verify for yourself that the UN GA, SG, SC, the ICJ and ICRC, the High Parties of the Geneva Convention and the nations of the world, including the U.S and EU, have all declared that the settlements are a “flagrant violation” of international law (e.g.,UNSCR465). It’s not my opinion. It’s current law. Your claims about Jordan and the Mandate are just as easily refuted by facts. The League of Nations’ approval of the Palestinian Mandate was informed by Churchill’s prior publication of the White Paper clarifying the nature and scope of the Jewish homeland. The White Paper and Mandate clearly show that there were no intentions to create a sovereign Jewish State, that territory east of the Jordan river was not intended to become part of the Jewish homeland (See Art.25 of the Mandate), and that the creation of a Jewish Homeland was subordinate to protecting “the rights and position” of Palestinian-Arabs (See Mandate Article 6). Drafts of the White Paper were circulated for comment before its publication. Weizmann writing on behalf of the Zionist Organization approved the White Paper’s policies. Again, I don’t ask anyone to simply believe me – complete copies of the original documents are easily found on the web. Now Chaim, where is that “incontrovertible proof” that you keep talking about? Please produce it for Wikipedia because apparently no one else is aware of it’s existence, not even Israel, which still claims that the occupied territories are “disputed.”

#31 Jump Off The Balcony. Even you must know that it is impossible to offer legal proof in a post. The fact that you pretend to do so simply verifies that you are a ridiculous poseur. Perhaps in your surreal world, legal trials are held by anonymous pretend lawyers on online posts. But I'm talking about the real world. In the real world, the legal evidence of Israel's ownership of Judea and Samaria is so airtight, the P.A. refuses even to debate it. MK Danny Ayalon issued them a clear challenge to debate it. Perhaps you should do what the P.A. refuses to do. Take your idiocy to a public forum and debate MK Ayalon on Judea and Samaria.

Have confidence in GOD and in Israel. You must know the American Government is no longer for Israel 100%. America tries to please Arabs and expect Israel to give up everything. this will not bring Peace to the region. American doesn't realize she is failing rapidly in the world. Livni you are Israeli and therefore think & be for Israel. do not believe America is interested in Israel 100%. The American people are divided for many years about Israel. Canda also will begin loosing faith in Israel. The Harper government is propably the last government who will support Israel 100%.

What do you mean "it is impossible to offer legal proof in a post". What utter nonsense! Just cite your legal sources i.e. legislative documents, court judgments, etc. (not opinions of individuals). Simple. If you cannot do this then all you have to offer are empty words and hot air. By the way, even your hero, Rostow, said in 1991: "The two parcels of land [the West Bank and Gaza] are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion."

The Palenstinas are no indengious people. They are from the Aegean Sea region belonging to the Greek Empire who sailed to Israel and refused to leave. History & archeology has proven time & time again. It is the UN & politician who are destroying the truth. Seek the evidence yourself. There are no Palentians anymore. These people were conquered by Egyptians, Jordanians. They were conquered by the Roman Empire. For the truth you must seek it. It is also written in the Torah.

and it does not matter where they came from a hundred, five hundred or a thousand years ago. The simple fact is that they and their families were living on the land when we returned and they have a right to continue living there. If they were not a people a hundred years ago, they are now -- we, and the rest of the Arab world have created them.

Exactly. Before 1947 Pakistanis did not exist. Before 1971 Bangladeshis did not exist. Both these populations would have been regarded as Indian 70 years ago. Few would dispute these separate national identities in 2013.

Now c’mon Chaim, where is this “incontrovertible proof” that you keep talking about? Surely there is a court decision or something written somewhere that will convince me and the rest of the world that you aren't totally crazy? Maybe it's a "secret" between you and SarahB? C'mon Chaim, at least tell Wikipedia about it and send a copy to Bibi because he apparently does not know about it and neither does anyone else…. C'mon Chaim, confess -are you a paid troll for the rabid radical right? Surely you aren't really this uneducated or delusionsal. Surely you know that international law is not produced by academic arguments, not by Rostow, not by Stone nor any other individual lawyer –nor by a single country. International law is a product of the practices and agreements between the nations of the world and the organizations that they have created for that purpose. In this context, you can verify for yourself that the UN GA, SG, SC, the ICJ and ICRC, the High Parties of the Geneva Convention and the nations of the world, including the U.S and EU, have all declared that the settlements are a “flagrant violation” of international law (e.g.,UNSCR465). That makes it international law. It’s not my opinion. It’s law and it is publicly available information. So why are you pretending that it's not?

Although Rostow, does not directly address the issue, the quote given by Bertram (#34) underscores Rostow's recognition that the UN still retained the power to allocate the territories to the Palestinians. The UN did just that with its recent recognition of the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders subject to UNSCR242 et seq. Apparently the government of Israel recognizes that it now no longer has even a tenuous argument to support its settlement policy. Which explains why it has surpressed the "Levy" report and is now preparing for the reopening of negotiations. To my knowledge, no defender of Israel's settlements has directly addressed the UN's right to dispose of the mandate territories. Nor can I conceive of any coherent legal argument that the territories were "terra nulla" or "abandoned" given the continued presence of Palestinians there, the international rejection of Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank and the UN's continuous defense of its rights manifested in its attack on the legality of Israeli civilian settlements in the occupied territories for over forty years.

is that she talks sense and the population of the west retain a modicum of trust in that she is genuine in what she says. If Netanyahu is trying to spin a yarn in the hope that the changing demographics will go away after Obama has gone then he is deluded, Hillary Clinton is a virtual shoe in, and has already started her election campaign. Netanyahu is an increasing liability for the long term survival of Israel, and his loudest supporters are those who profit from the occupation, normal decent people among us are quite hoping that it all will go away. I have news for you it won't we either collectively dust off those second passports, or we stand tall and shout loudly enough, we are no long prepared to allow the blood of our children to be spilled to protect the interests of 350,000 settlers

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Foreign Policy. www.mfa.gov.il Chaim is correct.

It is so important to expose the sick leftist lies which lead Israel to one disaster after another. Israelis are still dying because of Oslo. Oslo was, and is, entirely based on lies. Just like the monstrous Two State Final Solution. The truth, about Judea and Samaria making Israel viable, is clearly visible to any child capable of reading a map. The truth about Israeli retreats leading to war is also totally obvious. All the truths are obvious. Yet Israeli policies are still largely based on leftist idiocy.

MfA foreign policy web page headline: Israeli support for a negotiated Palestinian state. Is this what you are talking about? If not, can you quote the bit which supports Chaim?

I am going to frame your post Chaim because it is the only truth I abide by. I have always thought & said, there will be civil war here if t J & S is ''vacated'' To think of Israel being 9 miles wide, makes my blood boil, because I know EXACTLY what will happen here. Chaim, please continue posting, no matter how many disagree with you. Thanks.

if Israel vacates the occupied territories is far more offensive and disheartening than the threats of our enemies. But just as Hamas stiffens our resolve, so too do such threats. I am willing to risk a "ridiculously small waist." If you are not ready to take this risk then do what you tell the Palestinians to do --simply leave. We will not strip you of your rights or of any property you leave behind.

withdrawing from occupied territories in order to reach a "two state for two peoples" resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Bertrand and I also support Israel’s withdrawal from the territories in line with the "two states for two peoples." So, why do you claim that the website supports Chaim's positions? Correct me if I am wrong Birdi but nothing on the link you provide supports Chaim’s claims that (a) Palestinians are not a real people; (b) Jordan is the Palestinians’ state, (c) Palestinians are squatters with no right to stay in the territories or (d) that Israel’s ownership of the occupied territories (Judea and Samaria) has been “incontrovertibly” proven in international law. These apparently remain Chaim’s delusions alone. Successive governments of Israel, left and right do claim that the settlements are legal. Tellingly, Israel does not want to debate the issue before the real arbiters of international law –the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. Israel and any intelligent objective person knows that it will lose. Our only viable choice is to negotiate borders with the Palestinians while we still has some leverage and international support. O

Type in the same website I gave you, followed with; mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide I gave the entire link in a previous post which was not posted here. (in answer to your question.)

Israel Settlements and International Law May 2001. is what you should be reading. The land on which the settlements are built belong to Israel. Reason the Israeli Government past & present have not annexed J & S is because of there would be a holy uproar, world-wide! Israel is not signatory at the ICC so no court case against Israel will be heard there! Israel does not need to ''debate'' anything at the ICC. Reason stated, above. Chaim is not delusional. You simply dont agree with his opinions. The difference being, you are ''left & Chaim is ''right.'' You want a 2 state solution, Chaim & I dont. You want the Palestinians to be able to launch their rockets at citizens & infrastructure in the center & all over Israel, Chaim & I dont. You believe that once the Palestinians have their land in close proximity to ours, we will all live in glorified peace! The infighting between Hamas & the Palestinians should be an example to you that we cannot trust them as far as we can throw them. Israel is the only democratic State in the Middle East, & you should realize that the rest of the western world will need us for a very long long time. I am not afraid of sanctions, I am not afraid of mud slinging. We came out of the Holocaust, we built this land with our bare hands. We lived in tents whilst being stung by insects, we bore kids who are still around to tell this tale. I doubt that you were born here. If you had been, you'd for sure be singing a very different tune.

Yes, I did that - and came up with exactly the same headline: Israeli support for a negotiated Palestinian state. Unless your understanding of 'support' is radically different from what is conventionally meant by the term the headline clearly doesn't support Chaim, does it now.

1. The reason Israel has not annexed J&S is because the world refuses to "look the other way." But the gambit may not have been a total failure; we will have to wait and see how our borders are drawn. 2. Speaking as a lawyer, anyone who thinks that a lawyer's arguments constitute "incontrovertible proof" of the law is indeed delusional. 4. Under Article 12. 2. (a) the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes which occur on the complaining state’s territory. Palestine is now recognized as a State by the ICC. Civilian settlement of occupied territory is classified as a war crime. Israeli citizens can be tried for their actions in the occupied territory even though Israel is not a signatory. Do some research. 5. I do not prefer a two state solution but it is necessary for moral as well as pragmatic reasons, not least of which is that it is required under international law. 6. I do not expect peace from the TSS anytime soon. I do expect Israel to gain more freedom to act uncompromisingly and more effectively against terrorism with widespread international support of our right to do so. 7. The West truly needs Israel to make peace with the Palestinians so that they can expose and deal with the true reality of growing Islamic expansionist aggression.

Israel does not say Jordan is Palestine, Palestinians are squatters, Israel “owns” Judea and Samaria or that anything has been “incontrovertibly proven” in international law. Chaim repeatedly asserts these as “facts.” They are fictions. Israel argues that the territories should be described as “disputed” because they haven’t been part of a sovereign state since the Ottoman empire. This ignores the fact that the mandate territories were held in trust by the United Nations. The mandate itself refers to Palestine as a state and requires a law allowing Jewish immigrants to become “Palestinian citizens.” (Art. 7) Substituting “disputed” for “occupied” allows Israel to pretend that international laws like the Geneva Convention don’t apply. But Israel does not have the power to unilaterally determine the applicability of international law.. That is why the “dispute” is not only with Palestinians but with the international community as a whole. Israel also argues that the Mandate remains binding law giving us the right to settle anywhere in the “disputed” territory. This ignores Article 22 of the League of Nations, the San Remo Agreement’s explicit subordination of a Jewish Homeland to the rights of existing populations, the white paper which informed the League’s vote granting the British Mandate and the Mandate itself. Article 6 prohibits Jewish settlement that would “prejudice the rights and position” of the existing population (Palestinian-Arabs). More important, if the Mandate is still effective law, then the United Nations still possesses authority over the territory that it has not recognized as belonging to Israel and the Settlers are therefore trespassers. This is not a difference of opinion between political factions but between fact and fiction, right and wrong. And on the factual issue of the settlements’ legality under international law, the “right” –and regrettably, Israel-- are wrong.

so sorry I wont be able to read your many words here & there, I broke my spectacles. Enjoy the view from your balcony.

refuse to see. I find it totally apropos that you should finally admit to breaking your "spectacles."