end of the 2-state solution has good smart people using their imagination!

A one state solution is impossible.

It's idiotic to even consider it…so much for 'smart' people. I won't even go into all the problems and outcomes associated with this insane idea…'really' smart people already know them…but Aparthid State should ring a bell.

The ONLY way this is going to be settled in a LASTING manner is to apply the fucking LAW that would be applied to any similar situtation.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states categorically:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies."

Want another LAW?

Article 55 of the Hague Regulations(2) forbids the occupying State from changing the character and nature of state property, except for security needs and for the benefit of the local population.

"Local population" refers to the inhabitants of the OCCUPIED land.

IF it is not settled in this manner, IF the LAW is deviated from just because it involves "Jews" then the Jews will continue to be attacked, reviled..as well they should.

I have often said (some) jews are the stupidest people on the face of the earth for two reasons;..doing the same thing over and over (like for 21 centuries) and expecting different results..and second assuming all non jews are stupid.

Here is the way the JDL reads article 49..

"The use of "deport" and "transfer" indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians. Article 49 does not oblige Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population just because Arabs don't like it"

Evidently in law school the Jews at the JDL never learned about the "or" clause. It's not deport "and" transfer, it's deport "OR" transfer.

How about somemore LAW.

International Court of Justice Ruling, July 9, 2004

"Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [... and] have been established in breach of international law."

Even more.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

In its July 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice (World Court) in The Hague, Netherlands held that construction of the barrier is "contrary to international law," in part because it "destroyed and confiscated" property, it greatly restricts Palestinian movement, and it "severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of [the] right to self-determination".

The World Court ruled 14-1 that construction must end immediately, the existing barrier must be dismantled and affected Palestinians must be compensated.

The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution on July 20, 2004 calling on Israel to respect the World Court ruling. It passed 150-6, with only the United States, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau voting against the resolution.

Following the 2004 World Court ruling, Israeli spokesperson and senior advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Ra'anan Gissin, said, "I believe that after all the rancour dies, this resolution will find its place in the garbage can of history."

I'll let that 'classy" response to the law from the Israelis speak for itself.

This is simply an idiotic idea. Belgium can barely maintain unity, and the Flems and Walloons haven't even been killing each other. The E.U only made sense in the context of the aftermath of WW2 and universally acknowledged supremacy (we may call it hegemony) of the U.S military in the area. They won't be able to agree on anything. Israel may well want to replace the Law of Return, but with something MORE RESTRICTIVE. It should emulate Singapore in trying to attract the most productive permanent residents along with docile and replaceable guest-workers (the Gulf states know how to do that right). Eventually it may be willing to simply abandon the settlers and leave them at the mercy of the Palestinians if they don't want to return to pre-1967 Israel.

American,

Israel is not a member of the ICJ, therefore its decisions are rather meaningless and without enforcement authority. Additionally, the court refused to allow Israel to present any evidence showing the neccesity of its actions. Hardly more than a kangeroo court.

By the way, why is Rowan Berkeley calling himself a troll?

Currently, only Fatah has made that bridge. Hamas has burned it.

Ridiculous. Fatah's "bridge" is corruption and selling out its own people:

"…His crime was explaining, during an interview with the Beirut based Al-Quds satellite TV, why there are only a few demonstrations in the West Bank in support of the people of Gaza. Amayreh frankly said that the PA did not allow such demonstrations. Amayreh did not mean to undermine the PA but he said, "the PA has certain commitments towards Israel and they (PA) do not want things to get out of their hands." Amayreh also said the Israelis do not respect the PA and view the PA as a kind of "servant" to Israeli interests."

Details on the Arrest of Khalid Amayreh

…the bridge MUST be relations between the communities…

Good point Richard, so why not lift the blockade, thus allowing ordinary people from both communities to socialise with each other.

The years of enforced separation only serve to encourage mutual fear and suspicion.

Chris Berel wrote:

"If you wish to use the law as a weapon, you must first know the law.

As the disputed territories have no sovereignty to return to, they are legally not occupied, merely in contention and the Geneva convention article you mentioned do not actually apply to the situation."

Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1951 but held, as you do, that it did not apply to the occupied territories. The ICJ decided otherwise and I hope I don't have to remind you that this Court is the highest judiciary body of the United Nations and decides on what is international law and what is not. International law is not defined by a bunch of Israeli lawyers, thank heaven.
Your argument that Israel was not allowed to show the necessity of its actions shows a total lack of understanding of legal reasoning. Necessity (quite apart from the fact that this necessity was only apparent to Israeli settlers and their backers) does not create legality.

Your despicable statement that the ICJ is merely a kangaroo court displays the Israeli lack of respect and arrogance towards anything to do with the United Nations – (a lack of respect that was recently demonstrated in a tangible form by the shelling of UN buildings in Gaza).

Though this will be wasted on you I will quote here the relevant statements of the Court's summary opinion regarding the illegality of the settlements and the invalidity of the Israeli argument that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to the occupied territories:

What follows then is the relevant paragraph of the summary opinion of the International Court of Justice dated 9th July 2004:

"The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: 'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices 'have no legal validity' and constitute a 'flagrant violation' of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law."

The Convention as quoted here does not speak of "forcible" transfer, just transfer. So whether people went there of their own free will or not is irrelevant. The settlements required a considerable amount of preparation by the state of Israel. They did and do not have the character of tent cities. It was probably therefore that the ICJ considered that Israel had engaged in transfer and was with this in breach of international law.

Israel's argument that the Fourth Geneva Convention was not applicable to the occupied territories is dealt with in the following paragraphs of the summary opinion.

"Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court takes note that differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court recalls that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 and that Israel is a party to that Convention; that Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951; and that neither of the two States has made any reservation that would be pertinent to the present proceedings. The Court observes that the Israeli authorities have indicated on a number of occasions that in fact they generally apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention within the occupied territories. However, according to Israel’s position, that Convention is not applicable de jure within those territories because, under Article 2, paragraph 2, it applies only in the case of occupation of territories falling under the sovereignty of a High Contracting Party involved in an armed conflict. Israel explains that the territories occupied by Israel subsequent to the 1967 conflict had not previously fallen under Jordanian sovereignty."

According to the Court Article 2, paragraph 2, does not exclude territories that do not fall under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It thus declared Israel’s argument to be invalid. It says:
"The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, when two conditions are fulfilled, namely that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized), and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties, then the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties. The object of the second paragraph of Article 2, which refers to 'occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party', is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding there from territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties, but simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable."

"In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the 1967 conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories."

It is bedtime in this part of the world so if you have any comments on this I will deal with those tomorrow.

Funny how she was bounced outta Harvard, too…

I remember as an undergrad she and Randy Matory were two of the stars of the academic firmament. Now they're both on future endeavors.

Don't worry about the new influx of Israel Firsters on this blog. It's pretty clear from the telephone calls into CSPAN that non-Jewish Americans are waking up. The more they learn, the less American
they will consider our ZOG occupied congressional territory. Even stupid goys will get the drift, once they get more balanced information.

this is the most important part, someone should look closer into. Were these project planned longer, or is there a certain amount of discernible timing, who, when, how, meant to create distrust?:

The waiting period until Jerusalem became a negotiating subject was used by the Israeli Government to expand Jerusalem with extensive settlements in East Jerusalem. Such one-sided actions disturbed the trust between both sides.

Sara, the more people see the name ZOG, the more people realize that the concept was invented by the insane.

Benhabib has to remember that Istanbul's Jewish community was the only minority not chased into exile, with the Greek, Armenian, and Cypriot Christians leaving in the 20s through 50s, in Atatürk's lovely, neutral secular state, with the last anti-Greek and -Armenian pogroms in the 50s. Her utopia is a fluke of history, and is as fulsome and vapid as any Israeli Black Panther's memories of Casa, as the Islamic world–for one reason or another–emptied of its Jews, leaving only a tiny captive community in Syria, a larger one in Iran, and elderly Tunisians too fragile to leave.

A one-state solution presents the paradox that it requires the application of non-discriminatory democratic norms that Palestine has never had, and which could only be developed by an extensive reform of the current Israeli system, which claims to have such norms but with haphazard implementation. Ironically, there is sufficient case law in Israel to do so, but no social critical mass for a totally civil communally-blind state. After all, do the Beduin want to give up polygyny and have the funding for Arab development towns solely through the hands of the Awaqaf?

The battle for "unrecognized villages" is a battle for communal recognition within the structure of a millet-system Ottoman successor state, not for the secularization/civil-ization of the state.

Its up to us to make bridges. Jews (Zionist and not) and Arabs (Nationalist and not).

And, to ignore politics so that we don't have unnatural divides.

Well, I certainly agree with you on this point, Richard.