[redcarpet]

You are so out of your depth

ROFL! You are. You claim the West Bank isn't occupied territory, you claim the Geneva Conventions don't apply there, you claim military necessity 'trumps' the other two principles of legal armed conflict on the ground, you're the one out of depth here.

you are not willing to do simple research to learn more

I've done more than you have. You do some, and exaggerate the contents of it. Even when you don't you add 'I don't agree with this', etc. You didn't even know about Israels reservations on all 14 conditions of the 2003 Road Map, nor the difference between a statement by the UNSC and a resolution.

Interesting how you say "Israel's building may have been a breach of the resolution until they freeze." To say is would concede breach, something I've never found you able to accept.

the moment they "freeze" they are without doubt complying with the road map.

Even a third rate lawyer wouldn't dare make that perverse argument. The Road Map is composed of several obligations. Complying with only one is still material breach.

A settlement freeze is something that is a burden to Israel that takes energy to carry out, particularly regarding natural growth.

ROFL! Israeli women settlers not giving birth is a 'burden' of a nation. That's hilarious.

a quick look into the negotiations of the Road Map resolution would settle this.

Agreed, same for everything

[sebbysteiny]

Redcarpet

You are. You claim the West Bank isn't occupied territory, you claim the Geneva Conventions don't apply there, you claim military necessity 'trumps' the other two principles of legal armed conflict on the ground, you're the one out of depth here.

That's just empty words by an ignoramous. My assessment of your legal knowledge is supported by a fully qualified legal opinion, namely my own.

If you have some legal qualification, even if it is a year or two of studying law, then now would be a good time to let it be known, if you really want to make this a battle of personal expertise.

You didn't even know about Israels reservations on all 14 conditions of the 2003 Road Map, nor the difference between a statement by the UNSC and a resolution.

Is that it? I knew about the 14 conditions. I just dispute their relevance. You cannot point to any of the 14 conditions that in your opinion amounts to a rejection of the road map. And the difference between a statement by the UNSC and a resolution is irrelevant since we are discussing resolutions. But you seem to think that everything in a UNSC resolution must be binding even if the UNSC HAS CHOSEN to use non-binding language. A resoutlion to ask nicely does not turn a non-binding "ask" into a "demand".

You see, I've been discussing the substantive merits and it is you that cannot engage in this adult debate. I have little to no confidence you will actually adress any of my points. And until I find somebody who can, then what I'm saying must be right.

Even a third rate lawyer wouldn't dare make that perverse argument. The Road Map is composed of several obligations. Complying with only one is still material breach.

Great. Find me any third, second or first rate lawyer and we'll see what they say.

Also, my understanding is that Israel's compliance with all the other road map oblgations has not been contested by you or anybody. All we were discussing is whether Israel has complied with the settlement freeze, which we all agree it has. Our only dispute, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you think the road map's call for a "freeze" for the demolition of all buildings, schools, hospitals or otherwise that were built after the road map passed the UNSC rsolution and before Israel actually froze construction while I think the road map's call for a freeze in settlement building simply means a call for a freeze in setltlement building.

[pugsville]

"my understanding is that Israel's compliance with all the other road map oblgations has not been contested by you or anybody. All we were discussing is whether Israel has complied with the settlement freeze, which we all agree it has."

I dont agree, and I dont agree that Israel has met other obligations.

(1) It does not apply in the area around Jerusalem that Israel has "annexed" , but these is a clear breach of any settlement freeze.

(2) they have been unoffical settlements established all the time,which when they are removed ogten involve some sort of undertaking to expand some other settlements.

(3) They people annoucing these "freeze" are on the record as saying the "natural growth" is not included, so a fair bit of construction can go on without violating this "freeze"

(4) There are some settlement expansion that had been previous annouced that is being completed.

There are more holes in this unoffical settlement "freeze" than well most tax law.

It's only logical and well accepted that in any dispute parties will maintain the status quo until the matter is resolved. You may not support the two state solution and think that west bank is Israel's by right of conquest or part of the historic homeland of the jews granted to them by God, I don agree but thats a position. But if anyone is serious about any sort of two state solution then a settlement freeze is just a given.

[sebbysteiny]

Pugsville

(1) Firstly, I think its time we sorted out one misunderstanding you have. Israel has not, as far as I'm aware, annexed East Jerusalem. There was a plan by Israel to do so, but Israel decided not to actually follow through on that plan, which means Israel never annexed the area.

But ignorning that, does East Jerusalem count as "settlements"? And if so, is Israel still building on these lands?

Good points to raise. I don't have time to research it right now. But we'll come back to this. If I don't, please do remind me.

(2) Do you have any evidence of this agreement this time around?

(3) But this is the point of an unofficial 'off the record' freeze. Has "natural growth" been stopped? According to the report, yes, even if Israel has a different official line.

(4) Does this count? What then really does amount to a settlement freeze? What actions do we expect the Israeli government to take before we can say that Israel has frozen settlement construction?

You may not support the two state solution and think that west bank is Israel's by right of conquest or part of the historic homeland of the jews granted to them by God, I don agree but thats a position.

I don't agree with that position either, even though you somehow claim this is my position ]

It's only logical and well accepted that in any dispute parties will maintain the status quo until the matter is resolved.

I don't think this is actually what happens in practice. Judges often make interim orders that change the status quo until the matter is resolved. But I agree that settlement building must freeze and more importantly, so does the road map, adopted by a UNSC resolution. The question is, has Israel frozen such settlement building?

[clanko]

Sebby, I have been wracking my mind trying to ascertain quite why it was that you even created this thread in the first place. From the highly publicised eviction of two Palestinian families which were condemned by not only the UN but the US to today's interesting developments:

Israel 'to back settlement work'

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu will approve more construction in West Bank settlements before considering a halt to building work, officials say.

The prime minister is expected to back work on hundreds of new homes next week in addition to 2,500 units already being built, a senior aide said.

He will then consider a temporary halt to settlement building, as requested by the US in a bid to restart peace talks.

The news angered the Palestinians who said it was "absolutely unacceptable".

"The only thing suspended by this announcement will be the peace process," Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told the AFP news agency.

'Moratorium'

The US has been pushing Israel to accept the Palestinians' demand for a complete halt to all settlement building in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, before they will resume peace negotiations.

But Israel wants to continue building to allow for what it calls the "natural growth" of communities there, and refuses to halt construction in East Jerusalem.

The new housing would not be in East Jerusalem, the unnamed senior official in the prime minister's office said.

He said a temporary moratorium would be put in place if the "conditions are right", including if the Arab states were forthcoming in providing Israel with normalisation gestures.

The US later attacked the likely building approvals.

"We regret the reports of Israel's plans to approve additional settlement construction," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Mr Netanyahu is under pressure from right-wingers in his governing coalition, including his own Likud party, to resist the call to freeze settlement building.

The issue is expected to be discussed when Mr Netanyahu's aides meet US President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, next week.

The development comes a day after the Israeli media quoted unnamed US and Israeli officials saying that a US-Israel deal was close, which would entail a "temporary moratorium" on building, excluding units already under construction.

It would last for a "few months", depending on normalisation gestures from Arab states in exchange, such as tourism and trade relations and permission for Israeli planes to use air space, the newspaper Yediot Ahranot reported.

There have been hopes that the Israeli and Palestinian leaders could meet for talks - though possibly only informal ones - at the UN later this month.

But the BBC's Tim Franks in Jerusalem says the key question now is whether the other players in this diplomatic dance will accept Israel's definition of a settlement freeze.

The issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to President Obama's bid to resume the Middle East peace process.

Under the US-backed 2003 roadmap peace plan, Israel is obliged to end all settlement activity.

The plan also requires the Palestinian Authority to crack down on militants who seek to attack Israelis.

Close to 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

Does this latest development close this thread? Since, it is not just the US and UN which are saying it...it is the top-dogs in the Israeli government itself.

[sebbysteiny]

Clanko

the highly publicised eviction of two Palestinian families which were condemned by not only the UN but the US

As discussed, I don't think the UN or the US has any justification at all for condemning what was a private case over which the government had no control and must follow. I would be extremely puzzled if any state criticising what seemed to me to be a fair hearing would be willing to subvert the rule of law in their own countries simply because a judge made a decision that caused a media and political storm.

But ignoring that part of your question, so skillfully and slyly slipped in,

Sebby, I have been wracking my mind trying to ascertain quite why it was that you even created this thread in the first place. ... [in light of] today's interesting developments:

Clanko. I'm not a fortune teller. If Israel does go ahead with this plan then it would be a breach of the road map in my view, which would put both sides in breach again.

[clanko]

As discussed, I don't think the UN or the US has any justification at all for condemning what was a private case over which the government had no control and must follow. I would be extremely puzzled if any state criticising what seemed to me to be a fair hearing would be willing to subvert the rule of law in their own countries simply because a judge made a decision that caused a media and political storm.

But ignoring that part of your question, so skillfully and slyly slipped in,

We can agree that Israel is pretty much on its own on this one?

As discussed, I don't think the UN or the US has any justification at all for condemning what was a private case over which the government had no control and must follow. I would be extremely puzzled if any state criticising what seemed to me to be a fair hearing would be willing to subvert the rule of law in their own countries simply because a judge made a decision that caused a media and political storm.

But ignoring that part of your question, so skillfully and slyly slipped in,

Clearly since this article was dated and I used the word 'today' that there is nothing particularly 'sly or skillful' about a word order which you misinterpreted.

If Israel does go ahead with this plan then it would be a breach of the road map in my view, which would put both sides in breach again.

The reason I was "wracking my mind trying to ascertain quite why it was that you even created this thread in the first place" was nothing to do with yesterday's news story but the self-defeating nature of the post itself.

I believe your inspiration (correct me if I am wrong) for the post was:

So, if those that said settlments were a signficant obsticle to peace are right, I would be expecting major movements towards peace.

Did you stand by this up until yesterday's events? I mean, there is no shortage of points which demonstrate how there was anything but an official and complete freeze on settlement expansion in line with the roadmap, amongst a plethora of other points.

Israel did not even satisfy the basic starting points of the roadmap. How could Israel endorse a viable and sovereign Palestinian state when its actions on the ground, since 1967 have been to choose expansion over security, steal more and more Palestinian land...and further cement its rejectionist stance. I would love to know how.

This is a Netanyahu government Sebby, not particularly the kind of people you should be doing your utmost to defend on vague assertions.

[sebbysteiny]

Clanko

We can agree that Israel is pretty much on its own on this one?

You make it sound as if Israel has a choice. It was the view of a judge and Israel is bound to follow it. I would be intreged to find out what errors of process they believe that particular Israeli judge made, seeing how the US, EU and UN political leaders are all so intimately acquainted with the particulars of procedual Israeli law and with the details of that particular trial. I'm sure they all made their own valued judgment by getting the case of the defendent and the case of the claimant and sending it to their own legal team of Israeli lawyers who would then be able to brief the legal merits of the case of both sides along with complex analysis of the specific legal error the judge made in that decions to these politicians who have nothing better to do.

I'm sure they are not speaking from a position of total ignorance simply for the purpose of gaining world opinion by using this as an opportunity to posture against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem.

Clearly since this article was dated and I used the word 'today' that there is nothing particularly 'sly or skillful' about a word order which you misinterpreted.

Not quite true. You slipped in the contentious conclusion into a question that was not in any way relevant to that case. That makes it a loaded question and it's sly.

The reason I was "wracking my mind trying to ascertain quite why it was that you even created this thread in the first place" was nothing to do with yesterday's news story but the self-defeating nature of the post itself.

I think it is important to remember the significance of events in the big picture of peace making. If Israel complies with stage 1 of the road map, that has political implications, namely that our political leaders ought to be pressuring the Palestinians to comply with stage 1. And if the Israeli's and the Palestinans comply with stage 1, then our leaders need to start pushing stage 2 on both sides.

Did you stand by this up until yesterday's events? I mean, there is no shortage of points which demonstrate how there was anything but an official and complete freeze on settlement expansion in line with the roadmap, amongst a plethora of other points.

I must say I didn’t quite get what you meant. If you had evidence that there was no such unofficial settlement freeze, then I would be interested to hear it (combined with a discussion over how the Jerusalem Post got it so wrong).

Your BBC article, however, was later and was definitely interesting. I am not as positive as I was before about this move. However, I care about actions. We all know there are movements both for and against settlement expansion in Israel’s government. All that matters is which political force becomes Israel’s policy. So I say lets wait until we see what the government does rather than second guess what it will do. Right now, the unofficial settlement freeze therefore continues.

Israel did not even satisfy the basic starting points of the roadmap.

Please read my first post in this topic and explain to me what obligations of phrase 1 Israel has not complied with.

How could Israel endorse a viable and sovereign Palestinian state when its actions on the ground, since 1967 have been to choose expansion over security, steal more and more Palestinian land...and further cement its rejectionist stance. I would love to know how.

I don’t see how any of this view is relevant to Israel’s obligations under the first stage of the road map.

This is a Netanyahu government Sebby, not particularly the kind of people you should be doing your utmost to defend on vague assertions.

Ad homenim. It is the government of Israel. I don’t care who leads it. I only care what it does. If Netanyahu commits to a settlement freeze, which is much more than Kadima was able to do, then praise would be due in my view. We should also not forget that many of Israel’s biggest moves towards peace have come not from the left but from the right. It’s all about power vs will. The right have more power to confront settlers without their coalition falling apart but the left have more desire to do it. Historically, it is not clear as far as I’m aware which type of government is better for the prospects for peace.