With' or 'Against' the Gaza Disengagement Plan

Very interesting.

I've been following the Chronicles's series on the disengagement. There is something that confuses me and Indy media is unclear about this. Didn't Israel conquer Gaza from Egypt, and the West Bank from Jordan? So why isn't Israel giving them back to Egypt and Jordan? Is that the reason for the problems? And if Egypt and Jordan conquered their fellow Arab state of palestine what was the response of the other members of the Arab league? I feel like I'm missing something here.

Gaza was illegally occupied by Egypt after it went to war against Israel in 1948. Jordan illegally occupied the "West Bank" at the same time. Neither country had any legal authority to do this. The Egyptian administration of Gaza and the Jordanian administration of the "West Bank" lasted until these territories were liberated by Israel in 1967. Under international laws of war, Israel had the right to keep territories taken in a defensive war. Israel no longer wants Gaza, so the Arabs can have it. The "West Bank" is being partitioned. Israel will keep what it wants, and the Arabs can have the rest. Interestingly, neither Egypt or Jordan bothered to give a "Palestinian" state to the Arabs when they had the chance. More than likely, the Arabs living in the "West Bank" areas that are not incorporated in Israel will have to be administered by Jordan. It's rather obvious than no "state" is going to emerge in Arab territory since they are too busy killing Jews and each other.

Someone who knows his history.

Well put.

Folks, why do the attacks continue even though Israel is giving Gaza to the palestinians? Because the palestinians don't want any Jews in their kleptocratic neo-state. The arabs, therefore, are in essence, declaring apartheid on the Jewish state. The arabs want a jundenrein neighbor next door. This is the notion that all land to which the palestinians lay claim, must be ethnically cleansed of all Jews. It's as though the palestinians are entitled, by Allah and humanity, to make such a racist demand and still call their opponents “racists” for not immediately hastening to carry it out.

This is the neo-palestine, the 23rd islamic theocracy.

Why don't Arabs welcome their Palestinian Arab brothers?
(Typical zionist propaganda assertion)

To accept compulsory population transfer in principle would set a dangerous precedent for international relations, and many nations would use such an excuse to cleanse themselves from "unwanted minorities". In other words, if it is accepted in principle that one can transfer and dispossess the Palestinian people so that Jews can have a "Jewish state," then

Why would it be unacceptable to "transfer" 10 million Mexican Americans to Mexico? or
To "transfer" a million Kosovan Albanians to Albania?, or
Even to "transfer" 6 million American Jews to the "Jewish state"?

Ironically, Serbia, under Milosevic's leadership in 1999, used a similar argument to cleanse itself from its "unwanted Albanian minority", (of course under the pretext that Kosovo was central to Serbia's ancient heritage and religious past).

Consequently, the act of compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) has been accepted internationally as a war crime, and on that basis both Serbia and Iraq were subjected to international condemnations, and U.N. resolutions were enforced by military action to stop and reverse these war crimes.

For the moment, let's assume that the above argument are nonsense to the average Israeli or Zionist. Let us analyze why the integration of Palestinian refugees into neighboring host countries is not viable for the following economic and political reasons:

Economic reasons

It should be emphasized that 75% of the new Jewish immigrants to Israel, after the 1948 war, operated looted Palestinians houses, farms, cars, truck, banks, and the infrastructure resource such as water networks, the power grids, railroads, airports, wells, the telegraph network, and the schools, roads, and ports.

In other words, Israel has had the looted Palestinian capital as collateral, German compensation money for war crimes committed during WW II, and over 120 billion dollars in American taxpayers' money to help settle the new Jewish immigrants. On the other hand, Palestinian refugees and their corresponding host countries had no such good fortune. If Palestinians are to be helped to settle someone else's country, they have to take somebody else's property, which is unfair and unjust to others. From an economical standpoint, the biggest economic boost the "Jewish State" had was the looted and stolen Palestinian properties.

For a second, let's assume that such repatriation is possible in the host countries, and calculate the cost of such repatriation. For example, let's assume that we need to provide a reasonable health care insurance (not government subsidized) for each Palestinian refugee in Jordan (which hosts close to 3 million Palestinian refugees), and let us also assume that such insurance costs a $100/month per refugee. So the total yearly cost of providing health care insurance to all refugees in Jordan is at least 3.6 billion dollars = $100 * 12 months * 3 million refugees. Note that we have not yet analyzed the costs of providing infrastructure services, i.e. roads, water networks, power grids, education, transportations, ports, airports, ...etc. While contemplating these staggering numbers, keep in mind that the annual budget for the Jordanian government is little over 6 billion dollars, compared to 53 billion dollar for Israel.

While the average Jordanian citizen has some kind of collateral (such as land, real state, ... etc. ) to support his or her future well being, the average Palestinian refugee has nothing but his or her tent as collateral, and even the tent belongs to the United Nations. Consequently, the net worth (in economic terms) of the average Palestinian is almost nil, which negatively impacts tax revenues in the host countries. In fact, the huge number of refugees stifled economic growth in these host countries for several decades-since many essential services had to be diverted to help the refugees.

Ironically, the absence of the Palestinian economic base has motivated the average Palestinian to invest in his or her intellectual capital. It's really amazing how many Palestinians live the lives of many Jews in the past. In general, Europeans used to restrict land purchases by their Jewish citizens, which in return motivated many Jews to invest in their intellectual capital.

For the moment assume that the above economic formula is nonsense to the average Israeli or Zionist, then let's ask the following questions:

If it's easy for the host Arab countries to integrate Palestinian refugees into their economic and social structure, then why after three decades of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has Israel been unable to improve the lives of the Palestinian refugees under its direct control?

If it's easy for the host countries to integrate the refugees (despite their limited resources), then surely it should be much easier for Israel to do so?

Paradoxically, many Palestinian refugees' economic situation has actually worsened under Israeli occupation, and if it were not for United Nations' food rations, many refugees would have starved by now! In fact, malnutrition among Palestinian Children in the occupied West Bank and the occupied Gaza Strip has increased by 1600% since September of 2000.

It's unfair to claim that many Arab countries did not integrate Palestinian refugees into their economic, social, and even political structures. Out of the 5.9 million Palestinian refugees, there are 3.5 million refugees who still live in refugee camps (usually known as "registered refugees"). So despite all of the above obstacles, some 2 million Palestinian refugees (almost half the number of the Israeli Jews) are already integrated into the host countries' economic, political, and social structures.
Political Reasons

For the above economic reasons, Palestinian refugees were obliged to compete for all available resources in the host countries and continue to do so. The average Palestinian (ironically, like many Jews in the West) knows that he or she has to work twice as hard as the local worker just to keep his or her job. On average, Palestinians (for economic and political reasons) are not welcomed in the host countries, and that generates anti-Palestinian feeling. For instance, take the discriminatory practices of the Lebanese government where Palestinians are excluded from 73 job types, such engineering, health care, financing, ... etc.

Although this behavior is deplorable, it is a natural reaction by any state to any external threat to its resources, and this is a common experience among Jews when they emigrate to the "Jewish state". It should be noted that it is still a tense situation between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and African Israeli Jews, and the blood of the latter was not welcomed in Israeli blood banks for a very long time.

It should be noted that even if the Palestinian refugees are integrated into the host countries, that won't stop Palestinians from demanding their right to return to their homes in Israel. Palestinians are extremely proud of their national identity, and continuously assert their unique cultural and political differences at the earliest possible opportunity. This deep sense of nationalism is widely shared most Palestinians, especially among the affluent families, who are already integrated in Western and Arab societies, i.e. in the US, Europe, Canada, ... etc. Actually, many of them still marry from the same indigenous localities, and maintain their unique dresses, folklore, and accents.

The major obstacle that many Israelis and Zionists have in their dealings with Palestinians is that they think that 8.5 million Palestinians have no national rights, such as the right of self determination. Paradoxically, they believe that 4.5 million Jews in Israel have the right of self determination! From the start, the struggle between Zionism and the Palestinian people was a struggle between two distinct and conflicting nationalistic movements.

Most, if not all, host countries are hesitant to grant political rights (such as the right to vote) to non-citizens, especially if the "newcomers" could overnight change the political landscape. This political problem was the case in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria soon after the 1948 war. For example, Jordan's citizens became (overnight) a minority in their own country. To ask the average Jordanian to accept this situation on a permanent basis, without anything in return, is to create a "political time bomb". Unfortunately, this "political time bomb" has already exploded in Jordan and Lebanon, and its after shocks are still felt today.

There is no question of the fact that some political movements have benefited politically and economically from not integrating the Palestinian refugees. We agree that all host countries used (and will continue to use) the refugees as a tool to collect international aid and bribes. We also concur that suppressing Palestinians makes political and economic sense to some regional leaders. On the other hand, it's not fair to point the finger of blame at the host countries for not solving a problem that Israel has created. By blocking the Palestinian refugees' return to their homes, farms, and businesses, Israel has made this problem persist and fester for many generations, and it has to put up the lion's share of the effort needed to solve it.

No one has ever discussed "compulsory transfer" so where did this re-posted trash come out of? ANd as to assertions qwithout anybasis,"It should be emphasized that 75% of the new Jewish immigrants to Israel, after the 1948 war, operated looted Palestinians houses, farms, cars, truck, banks, and the infrastructure resource such as water networks, the power grids, railroads, airports, wells, the telegraph network, and the schools, roads, and ports." What bul! this makes it sound as if there were a developed nation there, what a fantasy! It was a desert and most of it still is.

Isn't it true that Palestine was empty and inhabited by nomadic people? (Typical zionist propaganda assertion)

From the early stages of Zionism to the present, Zionists have propagated the myth that Palestinians did not settle Palestine until it was later developed by the Israelis. To facilitate such disinformation, the Zionists adopted the following slogan to entice European Jewry to emigrate to Palestine:

"A land with no people is for a people with no land".

Had the Zionist leadership admitted the existence of an indigenous people, then they would have been obliged to explain how they intended to displace them. To disprove this baseless myth, let's quote Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister) who stated as early as 1918 that "Palestine is not an empty country". According to Shabtai Teveth (one of Ben-Gurion's official biographers), Ben-Gurion stated in an article published in 1918 that:

"Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants."

Ben-Gurion often returned to this point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had "the full right" to an independent economic, cultural, and communal life, but not political. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37-38)

To destroy this baseless myth, click here to view a page that was scanned from a book which was conceived and edited by Ben-Gurion himself, stating that Jews made up 12% of the total Palestinian population as of 1914. It's not only that the majority of the Jews in Palestine were not Zionists (by Ben-Gurion's own admission), but they were also not even citizens of the country since many had recently fled anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia.

As the Ottoman census records show Palestine was widely inhabited in the late 19th and early 20th century, especially in the rural areas where agriculture was the main profession. According to Justine McCarthy (p. 26), an authority on the Ottoman Turks, Palestine's population in the early 19th century was 350,000, and in 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews (including many European Jews from the first and second Aliyah).

So the Jewish population in Palestine as of 1914 were under 8% of the total population, which was much smaller than the Palestinian Christian Arab population. It should be noted that our source, Justine McCarthy was quoted by many Israeli Jewish scholars like Benny Morris and Tom Segev. In that regard, it's worth quoting one of the most ardent Zionists, Israel Zangwill, who stated as early as 1905, that Palestine was twice as thickly populated as the United States. He stated:

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)

In other words, Palestinians were recognized by the Zionist leadership as "humans" who populated Palestine, however, that was not good enough of a reason to "grant" them the same political rights as Jews, who mostly lived outside of Palestine. Consequently, this ideology was the prelude to the wholesale DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING of the Palestinian people during the 1948 war.

Soon after the first Zionist Congress in Basel (Switzerland) in 1897, a Zionist delegation was sent to Palestine for a fact finding mission, and to explore the viability of settling Palestine with persecuted European Jews. The delegation replied back from Palestine with a cable that stated:

"The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man." (Iron Wall, p. 3)

Despite that many Zionists were aware of this happy marriage as early as 1897, they have deliberately chosen to terminate this relationship since they think that Jewish rights are more important than Palestinian rights. The forcible divorce of Palestine from its indigenous people was eloquently articulated by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Israeli political Right, in 1926 who explained that:

" ... the tragedy lies in the fact the there is a collision here between two truths .... but our justice is greater. The Arab is culturally backward, but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own; it cannot be bought, it can only be curbed ... force majeure." (Righteous Victims, p. 108)

The questions which beg to be asked are these:

Do two wrongs make a right?
Is it just to solve an injustice by perpetrating another injustice?
If at one point, Palestinian injustice becomes greater than Jewish injustice, does that justify perpetrating war crimes to solve their injustice?
What makes many Zionists dangerous over time is that they start believing their own propaganda. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister between 1996-1998, proposed lately that Israel should never relinquish control over the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip since he claims that the local population are the descendents of non-indigenous Palestinians. He also alleged that these people came to look for employment that was generated by the influx of new European Jewish capital. Yehoshua Porat, a Hebrew University professor, refuted the late Prime Minister in an article published in Ha'aretz Daily, click here to read his rebuttal. It's worth noting that Professor Porat worked for the campaign to elect Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, so it might not be a good idea to call him Netanyahu hater.

It's really amusing that while nearly all Israelis and Zionists believe that Hawaii, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Tahiti, and Iraq were all populated by indigenous people prior to WW I, however, they find it extremely difficult to imagine that the "Promised Land" (one of the most strategic areas in the world) had any indigenous people whatsoever. It's as if the "Promised Land" had been waiting for over 2,000 years for Israelis and Zionists to settle it and make it bloom, click here to read our response to this argument.

Finally, it's not only that Palestine enjoyed a strategic commercial location (being the land bridge between Asia and Africa), its lands were also fertile and planted with all sorts of trees a long time before the Zionists came to its shorelines. So to claim that Palestine had no people until the Zionists came to settle it, is an absurd claim. Sadly, many Israelis and Zionists hate the idea of an indigenous Palestinian people to the point that they've created a fictitious world based on illusion. In that respect, the Palestinian people have a simple message: Over 8.5 million Palestinians are not going away. The sooner the Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they will wake up from their delusional coma.

"Folks, why do the attacks continue even though Israel is giving Gaza to the palestinians?"

You can't "give" what you don't own.

This is a scam. Allison Weir needs a real job not your money for this r-hashed trash.

New York Times Anti-Israel Bias in Editorials As Bad As Ever

CAMERA has repeatedly demonstrated the deeply entrenched editorial bias against Israel at the New York Times. Whether Israel employs military tactics to protect itself from terrorist attacks, or the peace process is stalled, or it is simply not progressing as quickly as the editorialists would like, even while Israeli civilians are being blown up by Palestinian terrorists, New York Times editorial writers stick to their consistent message—blame Israel and whitewash Palestinian responsibility.

In "Nourishing the Palestinian Police" (July 28, 2005), the editorial writer casts blame for the weak and problematic Palestinian security forces on Israel’s leadership. Following up on Jerusalem bureau chief Steven Erlanger’s balanced report on a recent survey of the Palestinian security environment ("Palestinian Security Forces Are Found Unfit" July 26, 2005), the editorial writer by contrast ignores Palestinian responsibility for the dire state of its policing system.

Erlanger reported that the "essential problem for the Palestinian Authority," according to the report, is that its security forces were established on "an ad hoc basis without statutory support and in isolation of wider reforms," which he notes is "a lasting legacy of Mr. Arafat's policy of duplication and promoting rivalry within his organization." The editorialist, however, faults only Israel’s response to Palestinian violence; according to the editorial, the Palestinian initifada was nothing more than "ill-advised" but the real culprit responsible for the "tattered nature of Palestinian Authority security forces–including police officers and soldiers" is Ariel Sharon’s response.

True to New York Times editorial form, the Palestinian leader is described as a "moderate" whose success has nothing to do with him taking concrete steps against the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure which his predecessor helped construct (in fact, one of the requirements of the Road Map). Instead, Abbas’ future is predicated upon Israel having "to start taking the steps that will allow him to make the case to the Palestinian people that his way–the path of negotiations over violence–will yield the results they want."

That Israel does not wish to allow the Palestinian security forces to re-arm is unsurprising. After all, Israel has already learned from bitter experience since the Oslo agreements that allowing the Palestinians to arm their security forces proved deadly for Israelis. The intifada spiraled into lethal violence as Palestinian security forces, police and armed militia began employing Katyusha rockets, mortars, anti-tank land mines, and Kassam-2 surface-to-surface rockets against the Israeli army and civilians. Palestinian security forces have been involved in numerous terrorist attacks that have claimed Israeli lives. Hundreds of members of the Palestinian Authority security services have participated in violence against Israel during the intifada. But the New York Times editorial characterizes this Israeli decision not to re-arm the Palestinian security forces as "adding insult to irony."

The editorial advises that "Mr. Sharon should not even consider exchanging Gaza for more settlement in the West Bank," and that he should help the Palestinian leader "by announcing a freeze on all settlement activity." There is no specific advice for the Palestinian leader.

As CAMERA has repeatedly indicated, the New York Times editorials follow a pattern of blaming Israel, ignoring Palestinian violations of the Road Map, and whitewashing Palestinian terrorism and extremism. The template was aptly summarized in a recent Mediacrity blog entry.

1. Whatever the problem, blame Israel.

2. Ignore Palestinian Flouting of the Road Map

3. Promote the Myth of Palestinian "Moderation."

4. Whitewash terror groups.

5. Palestinian failures are caused by Israel.

6. The U.S. Must Pressure Israel.

Even as the Times' news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become more balanced and nuanced over the past few years, its editorial bias remains as bad as ever.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that site yet. Very informative.

Oh, wait, I thought Thuh Zionists were all supposed to believe the exact same thing, and then print it in the New York Times to make it Official Zi-i-i-ionist Doctrine. Yet here's a Zi-i-ionist group attacking the Times for supporting the Gaza pull-out. What went wrong? Could the Zi-i-i-ionist caricature swatted about so frequently on Indybay be -- perish the thought! -- _inaccurate_?

@%<

You continue to demonstrate your incapability, you cannot refute clear conclusion, as a result of thorough research, that there is pro-israel bias in the mainstream media
Here: this one doesn't have anything to do w/ Weir, how are you going to attempt to discredit this source?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=18®ion_id=13
Oh yeah, and you've still failed to refute the multi-media content analysis of this site
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem - Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. Arabs have only had control of Israel twice - from 634 until the Crusader invasion in June 1099, and from 1292 until the year 1517 when they were dispelled by the Turks in their conquest.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran. There are vague references to Jerusalem in the Hadiths - stories about Mohammed - that he stopped his night journey (which the Koran explains took place in a dream!) at the "farther mosque" (or "distant place"). Muslims explain that this means "at the edge of the Temple mount", although no direct reference to Jerusalem or the Temple Mount is made.

7. King David established the city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Some Muslims (i.e. those between Israel and Saudi Arabia) pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees - In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict - The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with weapons.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs - Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

You continue to demonstrate your incapability, you cannot refute clear conclusion, as a result of thorough research, that there is pro-israel bias in the mainstream media
Here: this one doesn't have anything to do w/ Weir, how are you going to attempt to discredit this source?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=18®ion_id=13
Oh yeah, and you've still failed to refute the multi-media content analysis of this site
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/

The New York Times has been an anti-zionist publication from the beginning. Most folks don't know that although the Sulzberger family has a Jewish ancestor,they are now Episcopalians.

Uh-oh -- don't tell the anti-Zionists that, or else Wendy "I'm not an antisemite, I'm only an anti-Zionist" Campbell will have to stop referring to it as the "Jew York Times."

@%<

Although Israel plans to dismantle its illegal settlements and military bases in the Gaza Strip, it will still maintain a full-scale sea, air, and land siege of the territory. Gaza will remain an open-air prison under Israeli control, preventing Palestinians from exercising their right to freedom of movement and from engaging in economic activity. Under these conditions, Israel will still in effect be occupying the Gaza Strip, according to international law.

That simply an incorrect statement of international law. Whats your legal basis?

Belligerent occupation is governed by The Hague Regulations of 1907, as well as by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the customary laws of belligerent occupation. Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), paragraph 3 continued: “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in a Time of War of 12 August 1949;...” Again, the Security Council vote was 14 to 0, becoming obligatory international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there. The Palestinian People living in this Palestinian Land are “protected persons” within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of their rights are sacred under international law.

There are 149 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every one of these Palestinians living in occupied Palestine. The Israeli Government is currently violating, and has since 1967 been violating, almost each and every one of these sacred rights of the Palestinian People recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are war crimes.

Its a start. At least you seem to be reading. These articles refer to the rights of individuals. Its important to note that all of the Universities, hospitals,electrification projects etc. in the Palestinian controlled territories havebeen built by Israel. Nothing there has anything to do with legal authority Palestinian soveriegnty nor an eternal, hereditary refugee status. Its a typical mis-statement, confusing individual rights with national rights.

Many Indybay posters repeatedly claim that the Jews are "illegally occupying" the West Bank and Gaza. Mostly they are referring to the Geneva Convention, but also to UN resolutions. In addition, international treaties also can form a basis for International law.

The Geneva Convention prohibits occupying nations from displacing the civilian population. Some here claim the Jewish settlements do that, but they can't find a single Palestinian who can claim he/she was displaced by any settlement since 1967. These Jewish settlements were all built on vacant, govt.-owned land and displaced no one. There are currently about 200,000 Jews living on the West Bank on about 3% of the land there. They are hurting no one and are NOT preventing the Palestinians from forming their state.

The reason this passage of the Geneva convention does NOT apply to this situation, is that in 1967, Israel won a DEFENSIVE war. This means that lands acquired in a defensive war now belong to the victor. THIS is international law. But Israel did not incorporate the captured territitories into its final borders. They still held out for the formation of a Palestinian state someday.

Israel did not invade and capture any other sovereign nation, so the Geneva Convention does not apply (with the exception of the Sinai peninsula---which they gave back in 1979).

As for the UN: UN resolution 242 is the international law governing the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza. According to this resolution, passed AFTER Israel's victory in the 1967 war, Israel was to govern those captured territories until a peace treaty could be reached, and final borders established. Israel has complied with and made peace with BOTH Jordan and Egypt (the two countries who had occupied the West Bank and Gaza.

AND Israel keeps trying to make peace with the Palestinians. Unfortunately Hamas and Islamic Jihad have different ideas.

Israel is LEGALLY occupying both the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is voluntarily withdrawing from Gaza in what will, I believe, be an unsuccessful attempt to make peace with the Palestinians.