As nobody else did it, I shall quote the article that condemns Israel regarding the so-called "occupied territories". I quote : "Article 49 (6) of the Convention. The Article reads : "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. The present Convention shall apply to al cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The conditions of armed conflict between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, as set forth in the article, are fulfilled in that there was a war between two signatories, Israel and Jordan". Did you all notice ? Israel and Jordan ! What has Jordan to do with this matter ? Does Israel occupy Jordanian territory ? NO. Is the so-called "West Bank" part of Jordanian territory ? NO. Is the so-called "West Bank" a High Contracting Party" (an independent state)" NO. So what is legally this territory ? It was and it remains a residual part of the “Mandate for Palestine” that gave the Jews the irrevocable right to settle between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River as decided by the League of Nations, with the formal intention to become an independent Jewish State, and re-affirmed by Article 80 of the Charter of the United Nations. And last but not least, for all those who deny that the “Jewish National Home” as mentioned in the resolutions of the League of Nations represented indeed an independent state, read the following : Palestine, the Jewish National Home was part of the A Class mandates. An A class mandate territory was considered advanced enough politically and economically that a provisional independence could be granted, albeit under the administrative control of a member state of the League of Nations – “subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone”… Were included in the A class mandates, Iraq, Syria-Lebanon and Palestine, the Jewish National Home. And to end with, I hope to have convinced all of you, that the Article condemning Israel with regard to the so-called territories is a HOAX !

Some real devastation & truly heavy civilian casualties mind you. Then the US & other states can step in, pull shaken, fanatical Jewish and Arab knuckleheads out of the rubble, drop kick their bottoms all the way to the table, and MAKE them (at gunpoint if necessary) finally and permanently lay and end to this ME blood & soil craziness. It really will take that kind of collective shock therapy and tough love to cut through all the ethnic and religious baggage.

Somehow, the Israeli left hasn't learned anything from our past. Just like what happened after Israel left Lebanon and Gaza and was then on the receiving end of rockets on both fronts, so will Judea and Samaria become an additional front against Israel, should we make the suicidal decision of leaving them. Abbas can't even demand his people pay for electricity eve within the so-called PA territory. It's time for Israel to interrupt the electricity supply to the PA and to Gaza, should the palis go to the UN in September.

Israel tell the E.U. to get lost with its dictatorial grup of countrys,we bend and bow to trade with China and also the Veto's that come from Russia and mChina to block any advancement of the WEST its time for Israel to stand up to all the other country's, I have no idea why so manu country's hate Israel they do not harm anyone all they want is a quiet life,but NO the rest of this stupid world is crazy.

by successive government of Israel to obfuscate its illegal occupation of land which the world community had designated for the creation of a Palestinian-Arab state under the Partition Plan. The nations of the world and the institutions they have established to , interpret, apply and enforce international law have unanimously rejected Israel's claims of a legal right to settle the occupied territories. You would have us believe that the entire world including the U.S. has been complicit in a legal conspiracy against Israel for over forty years. Perhaps that is easier for you to believe than the truth: the land belongs to the Palestinian-Arabs; the settlements are a violation of international law. Theodor Meron, an Israeli government lawyer informed Eshkol in 1967 that civilian settlement of the occupied territories would violate the Geneva Convention. Meron’s report was “buried” and Israel solicited alternative legal arguments from sympathetic jurists. Armed with arguments from the likes of Stone and Rostow, Israel claimed that the territory was not really “occupied” but “disputed.” and began establishing civilian settlements with the explicit intention of creating facts on the ground that would prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Israel has simply ignored the rejection of its legal arguments. This is the history of the real hoax and you are either one of its perpetrators or one of its victims. It doesn’t really matter now. The hoax is being exposed. The settlement movement is over.

let's see... you want us to believe that the world is wrong and you are right? Duhh.... no thank you, but maybe you would like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

Decisions must be made also by the 'other side'. As you stated, Olmert made a remarkable offer, one that provoked a lot of discussion, but the Palestinian leadership failed to take up the gauntlet and move the process forward. Don't you think the ball is in 'their' court?

1. "unanimously rejected Israel's claims of a legal right to settle the occupied territories." False 2. Also the land we are speaking of was NOT designated for an arab state. The arab state had already been created (Jordan). And the borders of the Partition Plan did not show the borders as they exist now. 3. Also the arabs REJECTED this. And then attacked. You cannot go back. Strike three, you're out. Sorry.

#35. Oh so the Eurotrash are the repository of wisdom and morals, are they? The Europeans who caused both World Wars! The Europeans that caused most human suffering throughout history! The Europeans who constantly depend on the U.S. to save them from themselves! Sarah has more intelligence and morals than any gathering of European leaders.

Very interesting article and hope the Israeli leaders listen to Ephraim Sneh. I predict EU's next step is to boycott all Israeli imports i.e 73 percent of its total export.

Then lets elect Sarah B to be President of the European Union and you'll be her Vice President. LOL

Just listen to Dr. Ephraim Sneh who is stating the truth and shut up and why are you in Belgium and not in the promissed land.

1. The Security Council unanimously condemned the settlements as a "flagrant violation" of international law; the fourteen judges of the International Court of Justice unanimously held that the settlements violate international law; the ICRC and High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Convention (who are charged with its interpretation) ruled that the settlements are illegal; the official position of the U.S. and EU is that the settlements are unlawful. 2. The UN Partition Plan divides the land WEST of the Jordan river into two prospective states, one for Arabs and the other for Jews. It’s easy to verify if you can read. 3. It is/was up to the UN to determine what to do with “residual mandate land”, not Israel. The UN has now recognized it as the State of Palestine. And silly boy, if one "can't go back", then how the hell did WE get back? , Sorry, but even you must know that Israel will likely recognize Palestine, surrender some settlements and renounce further claims to the occupied territories within the next year.

You do realise that it even means that Israeli banks NOW face sanctions if they have branches in the West Bank don't you?

I’m really disappointed. You were not able to refute, not even one of my arguments based on authentic documents. All you succeed to do, is repeat again and again, that “The nations of the world and the institutions they have established to, interpret apply and enforce international law have unanimously rejected Israel’s claim of legal right to settle the occupied territories”. And I proved by giving the full argumentation in my post # 61, that all this cabal is based on a mystification, a hoax of Article 46 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. You have not refuted my arguments. Did you? What you are doing, is just apply Joseph GOEBBELS doctrine: “Repeat a lie again and again, till it is accepted as THE truth”. Meron’s report was a stab in the back of the State of Israel, just to prevent, that all legal documents swept under the carpet, proving Israel’s legal rights, and the fact that a Jewish State could have been born before WW II, should ever, or rather never been brought to the knowledge of the local and international media. This reminds an even worse disaster, Nahum Sokolow, Chairman (!) of the World Zionist Organization from 1931 till 1936, claiming and writing that a Jewish State was not part of the Zionist Program. This was adopted by the leftist Zionist (?) majority, and by having no State (a state decided by the League of Nations Mandate, read my post # 61) gave Hitler the free access to implement his final solution.

1. "Unanimous" has a certain meaning; look it up in a dictionary. 2. Arabs rejected partition and attacked. They themselves insisted that the "green line" had no political significance and was to be treated as an armistice line only. 3. Once the arabs attacked, there is no "residual mandate land". If there was such thing, then Israel could make claims to what is called the WB. 4. The problem with your argument is you equate a "Palestinian state" with borders exactly as they stand. You 'forget' that where 242 states that Israel should withdraw from territories, it did not say "all" territories. This was intentional, as stated by the US. 5. Your last statement proves you the fool. Sorry.

IIt is not by using your vulgar vocabulary like: fools, small brains, big mouths, wipe your arse, runt, litter… , that you will become more convincing. You just show your true nature! As a lawyer, is this your style in court too? In fact you are just a boor, and it is beneath my honor to deal with you. If I nevertheless reply, it is just to inform the public, the journalists, even the politicians who often seem to have some worrying gaps of knowledge. # 73 / 1. Find response with # 61. #73 / 2. The November 1947 Partition Plan was a none- binding proposal, rejected anyhow by the Arabs, so it went off the table. # 73 / 3. As the United Nations adopted Article 80 in their Charter, they could not contradict it by "determining" what to do with the "residual" part of the Mandate for Palestine, but had just to implement the League of Nations decisions. And if they nevertheless try do the contrary, they just make fun of themselves.

It is not by using your vulgar vocabulary like: fools, small brains, big mouths, wipe your arse, runt, litter… , that you will become more convincing. You just show your true nature! As a lawyer, is this your style in court too? In fact you are just a boor, and it is beneath my honor to deal with you. If I nevertheless reply, it is just to inform the public, the journalists, even the politicians who often seem to have some worrying gaps of knowledge. # 73 / 1. Find response with # 61. #73 / 2. The November 1947 Partition Plan was a none- binding proposal, rejected anyhow by the Arabs, so it went off the table. # 73 / 3. As the United Nations adopted Article 80 in their Charter, they could not contradict it by "determining" what to do with the "residual" part of the Mandate for Palestine, but had just to implement the League of Nations decisions. And if they nevertheless try do the contrary, they just make fun of themselves.

Assistance to Haiti, Turkey, etc. Yes, medical and technological achievements. You really do stick your head in the sand, don't you? And all you come up with is this crap. We don't buy it. Sorry.

sensibilities when your cohort spew foul invectives at others? Sarcasm and ridicule are well established rhetorical techniques. I use them to relieve the pain and frustration of constantly banging my head against the wall of obtuseness that characterizes the uniformed convoluted posts of, sorry to say, commentators like you. I have diligently researched the legal arguments. The West Bank belongs to Palestine. Reason and logic compel me to accept Theodor Meron’s 1967 opinion that civilian settlements violate the Geneva Convention. Meron’s conclusion has been independently confirmed by the international community including the Security Council and International Court of Justice. You are welcome to your paranoid persecution complex and to scream “HOAX! “at anyone who refutes your propaganda. Your only victims are those who believe that Israel holds itself to a higher standard than other nations. Unfortunately, it’s not always true, but it’s moot. The settlement enterprise is nearing its end. Abandoning “Greater Israel” will not mean peace but it will expose the true nature of our enemies and make it easier for Israel to defend itself militarily and in the court of world opinion. Believe it or not, that opinion may prove essential to Israel’s survival.

FO cites snippets of law out of context and accuses the organizations and agencies specifically responsible for interpreting and applying the laws he cites with perpetuating a hoax because they disagree with him; e.g., the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention and ICRC hold that the GC applies to the occupied territories. FO similarly dismisses the unanimous decisions of the Security Council and International Court of Justice as “hoaxes” (but clings to resolutions he likes). FO accuses even the likes of Chaim Weismann (who accepted and agreed to the Churchill White Paper prior to its publication) of being a leftist traitor. FO accuses Meron of "stabbing Israel in the back" although Meron provided Israel with suggestions on how to circumvent the law and, as an Israeli Ambassador, defended the very settlements he knew to be illegal. FO demands that there be a specific law which specifically applies to Israel’s settlements. Is a murder trial a “hoax” because the statute doesn’t mention the murderer and victim by name? And it doesn’t matter if such a law were to exist because FO says, if it does, “it’s a hoax.” In effect, FO invites people to play cards with a stacked deck, and then claims to have beaten them when they stop playing. It is FO who is the hoaxer. But it doesn’t matter. The settlement enterprise is hopefully coming to a close and the Palestine will soon take its place beside Israel. Let the chips fall where they may. The hoax is on FO.

1. Not unanimous? Name a single country other than Israel which has publicly repudiated UNSCR 465 and argued that the settlements are legal under international law. For that matter, name a single nation that formally recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. 2. The "green line" greatly increased the territory of Israel allocated for the creation of Israel under the Partition Plan and the Arabs were then hoping to get at least that back. More telling: Israel was willing to accept the green line as its border. 3, Howard Grief and his ilk may agree with you that Israel has a legal claim to the WB but no one else. 4. You should know from my posts elsewhere that I do not advocate a withdrawal from all of the occupied territories. We should keep whatever territory and military presence is objectively necessary for our security. 5. Time will tell, but I seriously doubt that Israel (or Bibi) is strong enough to resist the increasing pressure from the U.S. and EU to negotiate a two state solution as soon as possible. No apologies necessary. It's a matter of opinion –your opinion and it doesn’t matter.

1. in February 2011 the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have declared the settlements illegal. 2. The arabs repudiated the Partition Plan and attacked. Israel was willing to accept the Green Line as a border IF there would be a peace agreement. There was none, due to the arabs. 3. "No one else" is a statement avoiding a reality you don't agree with. Even you have mentioned many others in your other posts. 4. We totally disagree on what is necessary for Israel's security, as you assume Israel is invincible (G-d willing). You also assume the arabs want peace, and are willing to accept a Jewish state. 5. Your opinion is based on you ignoring history and the current statements of the arabs. Ever read the Hamas, Hezbollah or PLO charters? If you have, then you are even more of a fool than I imagined.

of the misdirection and dishonesty that characterizes debates with “true believers”. 1. You challenged my use of "unanimous" so I asked you to name one nation that has repudiated UNSCR465’s condemnation of the settlements or formally recognized Jerusalem as our capital. You reply: “the U.S. vetoed a resolution declaring the settlements illegal in 2011”. That “answer” sidesteps my question, ignores similar resolutions that the U.S. did not veto, and falsely implies that the U.S. supports the settlements. As you well know, the US considers the settlements “illegitimate” and is pressuring Israel to accept “a two state solution based on the 1967 borders with land swaps." Care to answer my original question? 2. The entire Arab world attacked us using Palestinians as an excuse. Palestinians should not have to pay the price for all of them. 3. “[A]nd his ilk” refers to the minority who share Grief’s opinion. 4. We are not invincible but Palestine poses no threat to our survival whatever our borders or Palestine’s true intentions. 5. I recognize the Islamist threat to Israel and the world. Smile: Given your total lack of imagination, I am certainly sometimes more of a fool than you can imagine.

“On February 18, 2011, the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning all Israeli settlements established since 1967 as illegal and calling for an immediate halt to all settlement building. The 14 other Security Council members voted in favor of the resolution. In explaining her veto, US Ambassador Susan E. Rice said the vote should not be misunderstood as support for settlement activity. “On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” she declared. Quote taken from the jewishvirtuallibrary

Just to inform the public, the journalists, even the politicians who often seem to have some worrying gaps of knowledge: Shortly after the six days war, the UNSC voted Resolution 242, that became the cornerstone for diplomacy in the Middle East. The text had been drafted by an expert in International Law, Prof. Eugene Rostow, Dean of the School of Law, in Yale. I suggest that all educated readers (not the writers of incitement, slander and slur) having a sense of civic responsibility should look after Rostow's articles available on Internet to in order to assimilate the real meaning of said Resolution. Just to realize that the more recent Resolutions condemning Israel are just a mockery of the UNSC itself.

And no other comment about my other points? Very telling. The Palestinians were self-invented in the 1960's. They enthusiastically joined the fight against Israel. In '67 they attacked from Gaza. You have not commented on the charters of Hamas and the PLO (they are Palestinians, remember?). You choose which parts of history and facts to ignore. It takes imagination to act as if reality wasn't real. You are welcome to that kind of warped imagination; I prefer reality. And I finally agree with you on something; you are a fool from the get-go.

Cabinet to release of prisoners and fast track the peace negotiations today? I guess the government doesn't have much faith in your arguments or, say, the Levy Report. How's that for reality? Enjoy! The restart of the peace process makes most arguments moot which is one of the reasons that I’m not wasting time addressing your latest attempts at misdirection. I won’t even dwell on your repeated failure to answer a simple direct question about the international status of UNSCR 465 and Jerusalem. Instead, I will be following the news and keeping my "eyes on the prize"; the prize being a negotiated final agreement of a "two state solution based on 1967 borders with land swaps." You might see it coming too if you can get your head out of your nether regions in time.

Thank you for proving my point. Salut.