GS
Find More Stories
20 APRIL 2011
Israel boycott needs targeted approach
127 Comments
The discrediting of a Sydney local council and the Greens for proposing to boycott Israel has been savage and effective.
The boycott movement is its own worst enemy by overstating its case and asking for too much. Those who oppose any action are in denial about the international unlawfulness of some Israeli corporate activity and Australia’s complicity in it, which helps to sustain violations of Palestinians’ human rights. The latter group appears to include both major political parties in Australia and one particularly unbalanced national newspaper.
The global movement of Boycott, Disinvestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel is over-broad because by targeting the whole Israeli economy and sporting, cultural and academic institutions, it collectively punishes all Israelis regardless of their responsibility for harming Palestinians. That approach is crude, simplistic, and alienates many in Israel who are sympathetic towards the Palestinian cause. I have international law colleagues in Israeli universities, for example, who are often involved in human rights challenges to Israeli actions. Isolating them, and others like them, is foolish and counterproductive.
Those who oppose any action wear rose-coloured glasses in looking at Israeli violations of international law - Israel is portrayed as a blameless democracy that is always the victim of scurrilous efforts to undermine it. It is true that the occupation of Palestinian territories is not of itself illegal. Under international law, occupation is a question of fact. Either a foreign power controls a foreign territory, establishing an occupation, or it does not.
It therefore makes no legal sense to impose measures against Israel merely on the basis that an occupation exists. Whether the 45-year-long occupation there has dragged on due to bad faith by Israel, and whether Australia should take a position on that issue, are both political questions to which international law does not provide a clear answer.
On the other hand, there are different and stronger legal bases for taking action against Israel. First, under the international law of occupation, an Occupying Power (Israel) is prohibited from exploiting the resources or taking property in Occupied Territory (the West Bank and East Jerusalem) for its own commercial benefit, without the consent of the local inhabitants (Palestinians). That includes exploitation by Israeli or foreign companies.
Such resources should only be used for the benefit of the local population, not to enrich the Occupying Power, its companies or civilians. This principle of trusteeship, stemming from a treaty made at The Hague in 1907, makes good sense - a population’s wealth should not be plundered by a foreign military power, particularly one which illegally claims parts of the occupied territory (such as East Jerusalem) as its own.
Secondly, Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, hosting 500,000 Jewish colonisers, are illegal under international law, in violation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. That rule also flows from the trusteeship principle, since a foreign military power should not alter the demographic composition of a foreign territory to its own advantage. This means that Israeli settler companies, or other companies which profit from constructing or supplying the settlements, are unlawfully assisting in maintaining the settlements.
What are the implications for Australia? Australia is required “to ensure respect” for the law by the Geneva Conventions of 1949. According to the International Court of Justice, in the context of Palestine this means that all countries have “an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining” an illegal situation.
Specifically, Australia should prohibit by law any operations of, or dealings with, any company (Israeli, Australian or foreign) which unlawfully exploits the resources of Palestinian Occupied Territory, or which supports illegal Israeli settlements. Doing so would demonstrate that Australia takes seriously compliance with the law of armed conflict.
The Israeli Ambassador to Australia has objected that imposing sanctions would infringe free trade obligations under the World Trade Organisation. Normally this would be the case, since only more limited kinds of unilateral measures (such as diplomatic or military sanctions, or travel bans against government officials) would be permissible, and these are not so relevant against corporations. It is also true that there is no binding UN Security Council resolution in force which would authorise Australia to adopt trade sanctions.
It is arguable, however, that the law of occupation is a kind of “special law” which prevails over the more “general” obligations of world trade law, since the former addresses the exceptional circumstances of armed conflict. It is a principle of international law that special law prevails over general law, particularly in an area as vital as the humanitarian protection of civilians.
The Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reportedly described Marrickville Council’s proposal for a boycott as “wacko”. It is certainly too ambitious. But if the Federal Government fails to take its legal responsibilities in foreign affairs seriously, there is no reason why lower levels of government in Australia should not act responsibly, to fill the void left by a Commonwealth that is missing in action.
What other measures might be taken to address these violations? A consumer boycott is not legally problematic, since no Australian can be forced to buy the products of settler companies or companies that profit from unlawfully exploiting Palestinian resources. That is a question for individual Australians, exercising their own conscience. In the European Union, that process is aided by compulsory labelling of Israeli settler products, so that consumers have enough information to make an informed choice.
Likewise, pursuing a disinvestment campaign is acceptable. Australians and Australian companies enjoy the freedom to choose where they wish to invest, including for ethical reasons. The Norwegian government’s pension fund, for instance, has disinvested in certain Israeli companies which profit from the Occupied Territories. There is no reason why Australians should not scrutinise their superannuation funds or companies in which they hold shares.
By overstating their case, supporters of a boycott have damaged their cause. The movement needs to do its homework to find out whether any Israeli, Australian or foreign companies in Australia are in fact exploiting Palestinian resources. By focusing only on those activities which are incompatible with the law of occupation, a targeted strategy is likely to gain wider support.
At the same time, those who naively oppose any action against Israel need to open their eyes to what is being done in the name of an Israel which has fallen so far: the paradoxically brutal, yet cavalier, plundering of another people’s inheritance.
Dr Ben Saul is a citizen of Marrickville, Associate Professor of International Law at Sydney Law School and a barrister, specialising in the law of armed conflict.
The boycott movement is its own worst enemy by overstating its case and asking for too much. Those who oppose any action are in denial about the international unlawfulness of some Israeli corporate activity and Australia’s complicity in it, which helps to sustain violations of Palestinians’ human rights. The latter group appears to include both major political parties in Australia and one particularly unbalanced national newspaper.
The global movement of Boycott, Disinvestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel is over-broad because by targeting the whole Israeli economy and sporting, cultural and academic institutions, it collectively punishes all Israelis regardless of their responsibility for harming Palestinians. That approach is crude, simplistic, and alienates many in Israel who are sympathetic towards the Palestinian cause. I have international law colleagues in Israeli universities, for example, who are often involved in human rights challenges to Israeli actions. Isolating them, and others like them, is foolish and counterproductive.
Those who oppose any action wear rose-coloured glasses in looking at Israeli violations of international law - Israel is portrayed as a blameless democracy that is always the victim of scurrilous efforts to undermine it. It is true that the occupation of Palestinian territories is not of itself illegal. Under international law, occupation is a question of fact. Either a foreign power controls a foreign territory, establishing an occupation, or it does not.
It therefore makes no legal sense to impose measures against Israel merely on the basis that an occupation exists. Whether the 45-year-long occupation there has dragged on due to bad faith by Israel, and whether Australia should take a position on that issue, are both political questions to which international law does not provide a clear answer.
On the other hand, there are different and stronger legal bases for taking action against Israel. First, under the international law of occupation, an Occupying Power (Israel) is prohibited from exploiting the resources or taking property in Occupied Territory (the West Bank and East Jerusalem) for its own commercial benefit, without the consent of the local inhabitants (Palestinians). That includes exploitation by Israeli or foreign companies.
Such resources should only be used for the benefit of the local population, not to enrich the Occupying Power, its companies or civilians. This principle of trusteeship, stemming from a treaty made at The Hague in 1907, makes good sense - a population’s wealth should not be plundered by a foreign military power, particularly one which illegally claims parts of the occupied territory (such as East Jerusalem) as its own.
Secondly, Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, hosting 500,000 Jewish colonisers, are illegal under international law, in violation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. That rule also flows from the trusteeship principle, since a foreign military power should not alter the demographic composition of a foreign territory to its own advantage. This means that Israeli settler companies, or other companies which profit from constructing or supplying the settlements, are unlawfully assisting in maintaining the settlements.
What are the implications for Australia? Australia is required “to ensure respect” for the law by the Geneva Conventions of 1949. According to the International Court of Justice, in the context of Palestine this means that all countries have “an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining” an illegal situation.
Specifically, Australia should prohibit by law any operations of, or dealings with, any company (Israeli, Australian or foreign) which unlawfully exploits the resources of Palestinian Occupied Territory, or which supports illegal Israeli settlements. Doing so would demonstrate that Australia takes seriously compliance with the law of armed conflict.
The Israeli Ambassador to Australia has objected that imposing sanctions would infringe free trade obligations under the World Trade Organisation. Normally this would be the case, since only more limited kinds of unilateral measures (such as diplomatic or military sanctions, or travel bans against government officials) would be permissible, and these are not so relevant against corporations. It is also true that there is no binding UN Security Council resolution in force which would authorise Australia to adopt trade sanctions.
It is arguable, however, that the law of occupation is a kind of “special law” which prevails over the more “general” obligations of world trade law, since the former addresses the exceptional circumstances of armed conflict. It is a principle of international law that special law prevails over general law, particularly in an area as vital as the humanitarian protection of civilians.
The Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reportedly described Marrickville Council’s proposal for a boycott as “wacko”. It is certainly too ambitious. But if the Federal Government fails to take its legal responsibilities in foreign affairs seriously, there is no reason why lower levels of government in Australia should not act responsibly, to fill the void left by a Commonwealth that is missing in action.
What other measures might be taken to address these violations? A consumer boycott is not legally problematic, since no Australian can be forced to buy the products of settler companies or companies that profit from unlawfully exploiting Palestinian resources. That is a question for individual Australians, exercising their own conscience. In the European Union, that process is aided by compulsory labelling of Israeli settler products, so that consumers have enough information to make an informed choice.
Likewise, pursuing a disinvestment campaign is acceptable. Australians and Australian companies enjoy the freedom to choose where they wish to invest, including for ethical reasons. The Norwegian government’s pension fund, for instance, has disinvested in certain Israeli companies which profit from the Occupied Territories. There is no reason why Australians should not scrutinise their superannuation funds or companies in which they hold shares.
By overstating their case, supporters of a boycott have damaged their cause. The movement needs to do its homework to find out whether any Israeli, Australian or foreign companies in Australia are in fact exploiting Palestinian resources. By focusing only on those activities which are incompatible with the law of occupation, a targeted strategy is likely to gain wider support.
At the same time, those who naively oppose any action against Israel need to open their eyes to what is being done in the name of an Israel which has fallen so far: the paradoxically brutal, yet cavalier, plundering of another people’s inheritance.
Dr Ben Saul is a citizen of Marrickville, Associate Professor of International Law at Sydney Law School and a barrister, specialising in the law of armed conflict.
127 COMMENTS
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added.
Adem :
09 May 2011 10:46:17amFantastic article, a superbly written piece that was well-balanced and objective in the face of a politically-loaded topic. Well done.SertoriusTheYounger :
26 Apr 2011 12:28:28pmIn light of the fact that the author holds a chair in international law, his misrepresentation is hishonest at best. Firstly, he must be aware that under international law Israel is not 'occup(ing)' East Jerusalem or the West Bank.
In addition, he knows that article 49/6 refers to a state 'deporting' its own population to occupied territories. It also goes on the describe 'forced transfers' to occupied territories and cites World War II as an example. This gives a clear indication of the intent of the article.
Another point to note is that Article 2 requires both parties to be High Contracting Parties.
Also, article 6 would not apply anyway as Israel has transferred government powers to the PA and as such is no longer 'exercis(ing) the functions of government'.
In what way is Israel 'deporting' and 'forc(ably) transfer(ring)' its settlers into the West Bank Professor Saul? Why are you referring to 'occupied territory'? What 'established and recognised sovereign state' did Israel 'capture' East Jerusalem and the West Bank from in 1967, Professor Saul?Whitetree :
26 Apr 2011 2:35:41pm
SetoriusTheYounger
Your contribution is full of errors, as are your other posts. In regard to International law, I would take Ben Saul's reading over yours any day.
You got to love it when these Israeli apologists keep saying that the Occupied Territories actually are not occupied by Israel. I wonder what the Israeli army is doing there then.
Israel's internationally recognised borders are those that prevailed pre 1967. They do not include East Jerusalem, the West Bank or Gaza. There have been discussions for 40 years and a "peace process" for 20 involving Israel, the Palestinians, USA, major European powers and others discussing an Israeli withdrawal.
As for Israel transferring government powers and "no longer exercis(ing) the functions of government", what a joke. You insult people's intelligence. The PLA and Hamas may exercise some local government type powers, as allowed by Israel, consistent with Bantustans. They do not control their borders, airspace, resources, water, telecommunications, immigration/emigration, nor have an army, nor have control of all the residents in the Territories, nor have lots of other powers associated with an independent country.SertoriusTheYounger :
26 Apr 2011 7:26:08pmRather than accepting Saul's reading or mine, why not read the actual law. It's called checking sources and usually doesn't even require entering a library now-a-days. You may even learn how to critically evaluate information.
You wonder what the IDF is doing there? Perhaps protecting Jews from lynchings, rampages, bombings etc? Or is that too far fetched? I love how these genocide supporters dropped the word 'occupying' for Gaza and exchanged it for 'blockading' whilst Israel drives semi-trailer loads of aid across the border each day and suffers such atrocities as guided missile attacks on school buses.
East Jerusalem and WB were not and are not part of any nation state. Jordan invaded and 'occupied' East Jerusalem and WB in 1948 and drove out the Jews. From this staging post they attacked Israel again in the Six Day War. After their defeat it was discovered that they had removed Jewish gravestones from the Mt Olives cemetery and used them to pave their latrines.
Your assertion that Gaza and WB are not 'exercising the functions of government' because Israel restricts air/sea traffic is absurd. Is Armenia not 'exercising the functions of government' due to the Turkish blockade of their border?tokoloshe :
26 Apr 2011 8:33:37pm"East Jerusalem and WB were not and are not part of any nation state."
SertoriusTheYounger, I can't wait for September when this wornout and grasping-at-straws argument is finally put to rest, when the world endorses a Palestinian State in pre-67 borders.Abban :
27 Apr 2011 7:20:20amThere is no such thing as pre-67 borders, it was an armstice line and it was with Jordan - not the Palestinians.
The world can recognize any country they want, it wont' change the facts on the ground.Whitetree :
30 Apr 2011 6:06:06pm
Abban
Ah, you are a comedian Abban. I had a good laugh at this gem. The pre-67 borders are of course the internationally recognised borders of Israel. They are recognised by everyone (including Israel) but not by Abban, Iran and Hamas it seems.Sheilah :
02 May 2011 1:44:41pmAnd you Whitetree are a deliberate misinterpreter of facts who is unable to provide any evidence for your ill-informed opinions.Abban :
03 May 2011 9:16:05amWhitetree, there is no such thing as pre-67 borders. Israel's borders have never been defined internationally or otherwise.
It was an armstice line that Jordan and Egypt routinely violated.
And even if we were to assume your dubious claims about "recognized borders" (no UNSC resolution refers to such a thing) it was never with any palestinian entity.
so please learn some facts.Whitetree :
03 May 2011 1:58:31pm
Sheila and Abban
You guys seem to live in a parallel Universe to the rest of us. You are full of bald assertions without evidence for the most absurd claims.
On the issue of the borders of the State of Israel, I have checked numerous maps of Israel - in UN publications, the CIA's World Fact Book, various official Israeli publications and elsewhere. They all show the national borders of Israel as we all know them (except for you two) - the pre 1967 borders. The West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights are all clearly shown as separate territories presently occupied by Israel.
Both of you are masters of the red herring. But "red herrings" don't constitute an argument - they are just a form of distraction to divert attention from the real issues.
SertoriusTheYounger :
03 May 2011 7:56:31pmI've just checked numerous maps and it CLEARLY shows Northern and Southern Cyprus. The fact that neither the UN nor any country in the world except Turkey recognises Northern Cyprus as an independent nation state with its own borders is neither here nor there. There's a line on the map!Whitetree :
07 May 2011 12:55:20am
Sure, but did you notice the borders of Israel? In UN publications and in official Israeli publications. Did you notice that they correspond to the pre-1967 borders. Gives the lie to Abban's claim that "there is no such thing as pre-67 borders" or that "Israel's borders have never been defined internationally or otherwise".tokoloshe :
08 May 2011 1:30:15amRound and round we go...
SertoriusTheYounger - you mean like this map from the Jewish Virtual Library maintained by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise ?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/borders.htmlSheilah :
07 May 2011 10:59:40amWhitetree
Your final paragraph had me falling about. Up until you concluded your post with that self-examination, I had thought you were serious.
Whitetree :
23 Apr 2011 3:57:12pmBen Saul's article is an objective, reasonable and well argued piece - not surprising given his legal background and experience in international law.
Several key issues that come out of this:
1) The gross breaches of international law involved in the settler expansion and Israeli administration of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
2) The blithe disregard for those clear breaches of international law by the USA and other governments, such as our own.
3) The ill-informed nature of Kevin Rudd's and, apparently, the Departmental Secretary's comments on the Marrickville Council case.
4) More generally, the duplicity of Western Governments who use breaches of International law and human rights to justify attacking some countries, while at the same time disregarding major violations by others considered friends of the West.Abban :
24 Apr 2011 6:12:01am1) Israel "breached" the West Bank after Jordan annexed it, something completely ignored or unknown by the Left. The "settlements" aren't going anywhere.
2) Yes, the US and Australia are full of #$#$ considering their violation of international every day (i.e, denying aborginals the right to self-determination).
3) meh.
4) That is absurd. International law has become a buzzword to stifle any criticism of non-Western states. Get over yourself man. Israel is a sovereign nation.
Would Australia tolerate what Israel does? Nope, not considering your history.Whitetree :
25 Apr 2011 2:10:41pm
Abban
A typical Israeli apologist response. International law should apply to everyone else, but not to Israel (unless it is to its advantage). The problem is that law selectively applied is not law - it is diktat. Nothing more than the dictatorial use of power.
Other problems in your response:
1. You fail to disclose the most significant fact about Jordan's "annexation". "Jordan’s annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others, including Israel." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem_by_Jordan)
2. Aboriginal people have full civil and political rights in Australia and are Australian citizens. There is no comparison to the Occupied Territories.
3. Being a so-called "sovereign nation" does not exempt a country from UN resolutions or International law - quite the reverse, they are intended to apply to those countries.Abban :
26 Apr 2011 8:09:20amWhitetree, you are backtracking. And no need for personal attacks like "Israel apologist."
This is what you said: "The gross breaches of international law involved in the settler expansion and Israeli administration of the West Bank and East Jerusalem."
What international law is Israel violating? Uh? Australia is one big land grab. White Australians continue to build on land they do not own. Why don't you go back to Britain? Or is this another double standard?
2. Aborginals do not have full rights. They have an average life expectancy of 50! Yes, 50. Israeli Arabs are 10,000x more free than non-white Australians.
Remember, Australia was the original apartheid state. It wasn't until the 1970s did you gets fully abolish your apartheid policies, though the effects still linger.
And as far as the occupied territories go, Gazans have a life expectancy of 76. Let's see - 76 for Pals 50 for aborginals. Who is the apartheid now?
3) Israel hasn't violated in any UNSC resolutions. UNGA resolutions are meaningless.
And the UN is simply unreliable and not an authority on international law. Israel's presence in the WB is perfectly legal.
Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, not the Palestinians. The Palestinians made no claims to the land, ever.Sheilah :
26 Apr 2011 5:39:41pmAbban
Whitetwit is as out of his/her depth talking about local government as on the subject of Middle East politics.
Anyone disagreeing with Whitey's dicta are put down as 'Israeli apologists' because it is easier than attempting to disprove their argument.
Whitey is a sad example of someone who thinks they know so much, but every pronouncement they make only serves to prove the opposite.Whitetree :
26 Apr 2011 10:07:42pmSheilah
Your response is childish as is your other, sometimes surreal, contributions.
What I do know is that: (1) Israel's future is secure, contrary to your own statements: (2) The establishment of a Palestinian State on the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza has been blocked by Israel and its illegal settlements for more than 20 years; (3) Israel's past vision for that State is like no other State on Earth; (4) if the issue is not resolved, it could prove detrimental to the region, if not to the World at large; (5) if not resolved, pressure will inevitably build for a "one State" solution.Abban :
28 Apr 2011 9:53:47am"(2) The establishment of a Palestinian State on the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza has been blocked by Israel and its illegal settlements for more than 20 years"
This is absurd. Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords which explicitly stated a Palestinian nation would be created through negotiations.
SETTLEMENTS were never outlined as an obstacle or even an issue. After all, the Arab states controlled Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem for 20 years and no Palestinian state was created.
Why is this?
Israel has honored its obligations to the T while the Palestinians continue to beg for donations and scam the international community into more aid for a state they don't have the capacity to govern.Whitetree :
03 May 2011 11:22:51pm"SETTLEMENTS were never outlined as an obstacle or even an issue."
This is one of your more absurd comments. Palestinians have raised it constantly. Other countries have raised it as well, including the UN, USA, European, Arab and other countries. Even various Israelis have raised it. It is often referred to in the context of discussion of "illegal settlements" and/or the "Swiss cheese" problem. Suggest you do more reading.Sheilah :
04 May 2011 6:49:21pmWhitetree
You can't just brush off established facts with an ineffectual 'one of your more absurd comments'.
What is the reason you can't accept the truth? Are you so ideology-bound? Biased?
I think rather than recommending someone else do more reading, that you yourself should try to read something more than petro dollar funded anti-semitic propaganda. These peace negotiations are not about what you have been led to believe they are about.
See for example Erakat's resignation over being exposed as willing to offer 'unprecedented concessions during peace negotiations, including on the ultra-sensitive subjects of Jerusalem and refugees'. . .
Whitetree :
07 May 2011 10:06:45am
Sheilah
Your defense of your often outrageous claims seems to boil down to nothing but name-calling and smears. It is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israeli government policy for non-compliance with UN resolutions and International law. As for Erekat, he resigned because the leaks to Wikileaks apparently came from his own Office. It is the normal thing to do in that situation. No doubt frustration with Israeli intransigence was also a contributing factor.
As Hanan Ashrawi has put it so succinctly:
"the peace talks were in trouble long before the Palestine Papers were released.
"There has not been a [peace] process. There have been sporadic attempts by the Americans to replace substance and objectives with negotiations, as though that was the end.
"We said no to that; either you make Israel comply to the freeze and stop all settlements and you articulate the objectives and the terms of reference [of the negotiations] with in a specific time frame, or there is no use of entering into an endless process which Israel exploits in order to create facts on the ground and to annex East Jerusalem".
lyle :
21 Apr 2011 3:34:37pmI find it odd that you call for boycott of Israel..but not Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and many other countries that have far fewer freedoms than Israel - a free and open democracy where anyone can speak their mind. The Palestinian territories are disputed territories and those issues must be settled in negotiations between the 2 parties. Israel captured those territories, not from Palestinians, but from Jordan, in a defensive war. When Israel unilaterally left Gaza and dismantled all settlements, the response was a radical jihadist regime (Hamas) that sent thousands of rockets and countless suicide bombers with the sole aim of killing civilians in Israel. Are you calling for BDS in Gaza ? Many who claim the mantle of human rights ignore or even embrace the worst human rights violators and direct their wrath only against the Jewish nation.
The anti-Israel hard left is a topsy-turvy world where the worst are declared the best and the best are condemned as the worst. This topsy-turvy view has become a staple of higher education, particularly among Middle East study programs in many colleges and universities. Among many on the hard left, the only human rights issue of concern seems to be Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. The fact is Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel are far better off than Arab citizens of most Arab countries (as they recent upheavel across the Arab world demostrates). Palestinians in the West Bank are not citizens of Israel but are under the control of the Palestinian Authority. In large part they are running as their own state right now with a strengthening economy and good economic cooperation with Israel.
As far as settlements. 2 million Palestinians live in Israel without having to be guarded for their safety, but why cant a few hundred thousand Jews be allowed live in Judea or Samaria - areas that have a part of Jewish history since biblical times and why do they have to have the army protect them?
This idea of BDS is just another sad case of the double standard that Israel is subject to and this focusing on Israel to the exclusion of all others who are far worse is both disturbing and outrageous.Abban :
21 Apr 2011 10:04:39pmAbsolutely agree. And coming from Australians - one of the biggest land grabs of the 21st century - is amusing to say the least. Notice how the hardcore Israeli haters simply ignore criticisms of their campaigns, and then have the audacity to say "criticism of Israel is a no-no in Australia."
What nonsense. Israel is subject to more scrutiny than any Middle Eastern state. Australia, while progressive, is not half as tolerant and enlightened as Israel. And that says a lot considering the Australia settlers wiped out 20,000 aborginals before colonizing the lands they now live on.
Shall we boycott Australia for their injustices? Why not right? Human rights are universal? Or are aborginals less human than Israelis and Palestinians.
bottomfeeder :
21 Apr 2011 2:20:04pmNo point in arguing with a practioner of black letter law...even if he is talking through his wig. Sadly, law seems to belong solely to a caste of initiates...who presumably are keepers of the stone tablets!Budovski :
21 Apr 2011 2:19:32pmCriticizing Israel in any way shape or form is a political no no in this country. While it is perfectly rational to suggest BDS against Israel you will be subject to consistent hysterical attacks by an aggressive and well funded lobby group.
All the government could say when the IDF executed peace protesters in international waters was 'the government stands with Israel'. Translated that means Israel can do what it likes no matter how violent or no matter how many international laws it violates because we have pledged unconditional support to a fundamentalist religious state and will violently oppose anyone who dares challenge them.Sinbad :
21 Apr 2011 2:17:43pmI agree with all you have written however Government in Australia is very shy about doing anything that might annoy Israel and result in an electoral backlash in Australia.
Sanctions against South Africa also punished the innocent along with the guilty and it seems that sometimes that it is the only way.
I actually hold the US partly responsible for the current situation. Like a drug dealer they enable the addict to destroy themselves.
For some years and in some quarters still to this day white South Africans were seen as the new Nazi's. They were even portrayed that way in movies. Many white South Africans were actually against apartheid, but their accent alone was enough for many in the world to show hostility towards them and brand them racist.
I fear that the same fate awaits the Jewish community. If the fair minded members of the community which are I imagine the majority do not stand up and publicly and with great vigor voice their displeasure with the Israeli Government history will repeat itself.Zaf :
21 Apr 2011 12:37:28pm[it collectively punishes all Israelis regardless of their responsibility for harming Palestinians]
The settlements and their land grabbing infrastructure (which strangle the economic life of Palestinian villages and towns) are supported and subsidised by the democratically elected Govt of Israel, and by the taxes it receives from its citizens. The Israeli military occupation of most of the West Bank (Area C >/= 60%), which severely limits any Palestinian economic activity there, is similarly paid for by the democratically elected Israeli Govt, with democratically collected tax shekels. The separation wall being built just outside Israel’s 1967 border (so on land that is the West Bank) is also – guess what – built and paid for by a democratically elected Govt.
The military administration whose random road closures and petty tyrranies make social and (important) economic life in the territories impossible to normalise is also acting under the instructions of Israel’s democratically elected Govt. (Which has also, now that we’re on the subject, taken to passing some crassly prejudiced laws in the Knesset.)
If a democratically elected Govt is implementing these heinous measures, why shouldn’t the citizens that elected the Govt take some responsibility for its actions? In fact since Israel is a democracy, there’s a better case for sanctions against the country than there was against non-democratic Iraq under Saddam Hussain.Joe :
21 Apr 2011 12:06:28pmI am very disappointed that Barry O'Farrell didn't summarily dismiss the council for even considering this question as an example to all levels of government that international affairs is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government as detailed in our Constitution. Threatening them with dismissal is not enough.Whitetree :
21 Apr 2011 11:44:32pm
Joe
"international affairs is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government as detailed in our Constitution"
Not quite. Section 51 of the Constitution does give the Commonwealth the power to make laws in relation to external affairs, immigration, trade and commerce and the like. However Marrickville Council was not purporting to make any such laws. They (and everybody else) are free within the law to buy, or not buy, goods or services from anybody they like.Sheilah :
02 May 2011 2:01:17pmUnfortunately, not so, Whitetree.
Look up the Division of Local Government, Department of Premier & Cabinet. These are local government responsibilities:
Development applications; animal control (dog registration, attack reports, etc), garbage, on-site sewage management, drainage problems, etc.
Among other things, the Division of LG: •manage programs in local councils that deal with social planning, sewage management, companion animals, multicultural issues, EEO, state of the environment reports and annual reporting."
The elected councillors have no mandate to operate outside their areas of council responsibility.
There is a Code of Conduct for Local Government and it would appear that Marrickville has at the very least operated in disregard of
"4.4 Impartiality
You should make decisions on merit and in accordance with your statutory obligations when carrying out public business. This includes the making of appointments, awarding of contracts or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits. This means fairness to all; impartial assessment; merit selection in recruitment and in purchase and sale of council’s resources; considering only
relevant matters."
But ethical behaviour also didctates that they are to act in ratepayers' best interests and must not make decisions in order to pursue the political agenda of particular councillors.
Beyond your ken, I know.
Simple Man :
21 Apr 2011 11:53:16amMarrickville council proposed a policy, investigated it and its costs, then dropped it (for now at least).
They gained an awful lot of media interest in a topic that really needs a good airing to get rid of the stench, because lets face it, the Israeli Palestine situation is very bad and going nowhere.
I have read media reports saying that the cost of the report into their proposed policy was of the order of $100,000. I kind of reckon they certainly generated more that $100,000 worth of advertising to their cause so agree with them or disagree with them, they have been effective.
Much to my surprise our newly elected Premier decided to enter the fray with a few silly comments of his own threatening to sack a council when he has no legal grounds. His involvement was way too early and just a publicity stunt. Lacking any showing of corruption and negligence he threatened to remove a democratically elected council. It sort of doesn’t really go with how he got to be Premier. The Governor of NSW might have to sack the Premier if the Governor feels that the Premier is considering an idea that the Governor doesn’t agree with.
By the time Marrickville gets around to actually doing something now, forewarned as they are by the Premier’s early intervention, Marrickville Council will have a reasonably defendable policy that the Premier will not have any legal basis to remove the council.
The truth of the matter is that Marrickville Council can mount a good argument supporting the support of sanctions, and is quite supported by precedents.
It wouldn’t surprise me if in a number of years, by the time Marrickville finish reworking this policy and its implementation and get the cost down (improving its targeting) Marrickville Council might actually make the Premier adopt the same policy, or lose seats.
Those who want to support Israel in its maintaining of it continued abuse of the Palestinians will eventually be seen as defenders of bullies and human rights abusers.
There’s been a bit of a general trend in the Western "world view" not to support slavery, sexism, racism, act of bastardry, abuses of human rights, etc, when possible, when convenient, when it doesn’t cost us too much money. So as the sympathy felt to the Jewish people for the abuse they suffered in WW11 ebbs, intolerance of their abusive practices rises.
OK there is a long and convoluted history of Israel and the Palestinians, some real, some legend, but the nasty super short version is once Israel conquered Palestine they had a small window to conduct their ethnic cleaning of the Palestinians where this was sort of politically tolerated (while nobody was watching), but after the positions consolidated and stabilised they needed to assimilate with the Palestinians or migrate them to other lands.
While there are certainly some Palestinians who have committed terrible crimes aSimple Man :
21 Apr 2011 5:37:55pmWhile there are certainly some Palestinians who have committed terrible crimes against the Israelis and should be held accountable for their actions, the vast majority of the responsibility for all the atrocities lies with the people who exercise the real power in the situation that is the Israelis.
What ever the Israelis have done to promote assimilation, it certainly has not been good enough or enough.Sheilah :
03 May 2011 4:13:52pmDo the Palestinians desire assimilation? I don't think so.
They may pretend to want integration, but they don't want that either.
Just read the charters of Hamas and Hezbollah. NOthing will satisfy them but the destruction of Israel and a return of Israeli territory to 'the muslim world' (their phrase).
Joe :
21 Apr 2011 11:48:56amAgree totally that we need a targeted approach with this policy.
The target for the policy needs to be the circular filing cabinet under the desk, the one that gets collected weekly and re-filed in a green wheelie bin.
This policy is totally unAustralian. It seems that over the last 30 years we have had a new type of immigrant who cannot leave their problems and prejudices behind in the country they left. When you come to Australia we expect you to leave your past problems and conflicts behind. Please don't bring them here. Otherwise please leave.Paulo Peres :
21 Apr 2011 10:49:32amYes there are legal actions to be done against Israel... Now THAT is simplistic, because for 41 times legal measures were on the way to be taken against Israel and USA used it's veto to null them all.
It's not fair to boycott every Israel institutions, indeed it isn't.
But we're at a point the there's absolutely no options for normal people to show it's rejection to Israel politics.Abban :
21 Apr 2011 10:43:58amHow can Australians shamelessly brand Israel as an apartheid state when their own country was the TEMPLATE FOR THE APARTHEID!
Want to compare Arabs in Israel to minorities in Australia? Average life expectancy of Israeli Arabs is 77. Average life expectancy of Gazans is 75.
Average life expectancy of aborginals....50.
Who is the apartheid? Australians should look in the mirror before attacking the most progressive and modern state in the ME.
Australia is one big settler state, unlike Israel where 50% of the Jewish population are descedents of Jews expelled from Muslim states.
Whereas Australians are decedents of criminal rejects from Britain.
LOL.sickofit :
21 Apr 2011 8:35:20amMarrickville Counci or any other Council has no business making international stands against any country. All international affairs are the repsonsiility of Federal Government.
Apart from Marrickville Coucnil and the greens losing all credibility on their biased stance, it shows that the true agenda of any Councillors are to push their own ideas, as opposed to acting in the best interests of the community.
Marrickville Council's amateur Councillors succeeded in angering and dividing an otherwise peaceful community.Whitetree :
21 Apr 2011 2:30:35pm
sickofit
You are wrong on many counts. Marrickville Council, or anyone else for that matter, can do whatever they want within the law.
The Constitution only divides legislative responsibility between the Commonwealth and State Governments. It does not prevent anyone, including local Councils, from making their own decisions about what products they buy, from where or from whom.
Marrickville Council will make whatever decision it wants to make. So will the rest of us. Neither its credibility nor that of the Greens will be adversely affected. And you are naive in the extreme if you think you represent the whole community, or that Local Councillors elsewhere in Australia "don't push their own ideas".Sheilah :
26 Apr 2011 11:37:55amWhite feather
Local Government bodies are accountable for responsible management of ratepayers' moneys. Fortunately, the misguided Marrickville Council are not in any way free to do what they want.
They have no authority to take any action which incurs unnecessary expense and must comply with State government purchasing regulations (regarding the obtaining and accepting of quotes and tenders, etc.) to be lawful in their fiscal conduct.
How irrational that you could imagine it were otherwise.tokoloshe :
26 Apr 2011 8:43:04pmSheilah, rubbish - The same council has a similar long-standing boycott on Burma, which does not impact on residents.
As Fiona Byrne said in a statement, "The Burma boycott shows that councils can take a stand on human rights issues, like the occupation of the Palestinian territories, without having a negative financial impact on residents."Sheilah :
27 Apr 2011 12:01:08pmTokoe
Rubbish, is as you say, the business of local councils.
Just to underline my point, could you please advise:
a) how much trade did Marrickville Council do with Burma prior to implementing the ban?
b) how much did implementation of the ban cost the Marrickville ratepayers?
c) how effective was the ban in changing the Burmese government's position on human rights?Sheilah :
04 May 2011 4:07:15pmGiven the time elapsed since I put the questions above, I guess that it is safe to assume the answers are as follows:
a) None.
b) Nothing.
c) No effect whatever on the human rights situation in Burma.
These shams are just diversions created by people with hidden agendas. Why do well meaning people keep falling for them??
Kimberley Rose :
21 Apr 2011 8:23:59amLocal councils should stick to fixing roads and collecting garbage. Thats what they are elected to do. If there is a human rights issue then it's the problem of the federal government. This whole thing is absurd.iorarua :
21 Apr 2011 8:04:14amMr Saul keeps referring to the Marrickville Council action on Israel as purely a 'boycott', when in actual fact it was a motion to support the international BDS campaign - i.e. boycott plus divestment plus sanctions. In doing so, Mr Saul is misrepresenting the Council's action in the same way that the mainstream media does.
And if, as Mr Saul argues, divestment and sanctions are OK but boycotts are not OK, then Marrickville must have it right on two out of three, which ain't so bad.
Besides, arguing whether the international BDS campaign is too broad or too ineffectual or too illegal is now too late. It's been steadily building for 6 years, long enough to to think through the legal, economic and ethical consequences.
Ultimately, the main aims of BDS are to raise awareness and promote discussion on the Israel-Palestine issue. So, in that respect, a little controversy goes a long way.JMJ :
21 Apr 2011 7:20:57amBen, my understanding of the issue is that BDS is having an impact and shaping public opinion and policies in Israel.jonathan :
21 Apr 2011 3:21:20amI propose an Israeli boycott on the apartheid & racist State of Australia. Sorry but having spent time in both Israel and Oz, I can absolutely promise I'd far, far rather be an Arab in Israel than an Aborigine in your country.
If I as a European emigrated to Oz, I'd have more rights as I waltzed of the plane at Melbourne than you give your indigenous population. Shame on anyone in your country supporting BDSZ :
21 Apr 2011 1:04:41amActually the BDS movement in Australia has being targeting one specific Israeli company that is exploiting Palestinian resources, that company being Seacret cosmetics, that gets the minerals it uses in its products from the dead sea. There have being numerous actions outside seacret shops by Palestinian solidarity groups in Australia.
Also it must be remembered that the BDS is not the campaign by itself. The campaign is against Aparthied and the bds is part of that campaign. Recent events have being very good in the sense of raising awareness of that campaign. Many people hadn't heard of the bds a few weeks ago.
ZNathan McDonnell :
21 Apr 2011 12:41:28am@Jabotinksywasright
Your pseudo-legal knowledge is a farce. Your cowardice in hiding behind a facade of casuistry is quite a flimsy disguise for your lunatic justification of Zionist militarism and expansionism.
Yours is a colonial perspective straight out of the 18th Century. Australians, given the history of 'terra nullius', should be having a deja vu when they encounter the Zionist colonial imagination of: 'A land without a people for a people without a land.'
Shame then. Shame now.Gila Svirsky, Jerusalem :
20 Apr 2011 11:54:37pmThanks, Prof. Saul, for the intelligent words. It is appalling to me how the broad BDS movement has pushed the moderates in Israel into the arms of the right wing. Historically, targeted sanctions have always trumped the more general, difffuse forms of boycott.
I will share your article on Facebook, and hope your message adds to the discussion here about the usefulness of the currrent strategy.John in Brisbane :
20 Apr 2011 10:45:35pmGood article I reckon Dr Saul. It would not be the first time an importance cause was hindered by over eager proponents - the stupid scare campaigns aimed at protecting kids from drugs spring to mind.
While I am in favour of doing something that ostracises these clowns, I know that plenty of Israelis are embarrassed and upset by the actions of their government. But then, the trend in western democracies is to make laws that punish or lessen the freedoms of the many in order to catch the few. I don't know much about Israeli politics but it could be argued that as a democracy, more than half of Israelis voted for these fools. While somewhat unpalatable, measures that target the whole of Israel would certainly be fairer in that regard than plenty of the laws made here.
I am sorry that I don't have any positive answers but I do wish to tender my support for this piece.Zombie James :
20 Apr 2011 10:22:53pmA rational and balanced article - but I wouldn't buy anything made in Israel, under any circumstances, and I'd support any organization making the same decision.Jabotinskywasright :
20 Apr 2011 9:14:48pmBen Saul’s entire argument rests on a false premise – that the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 (Protection of Civilians) applies to the West Bank.
Common Article II states: “The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party”
But there is an extremely strong argument in support of the proposition that the West Bank does not constitute territory occupied by a foreign power, and thus the Geneva Conventions don’t apply.
The West Bank was made up of those regions of the British Palestine Mandate that were captured by the Jordanian army during Israel’s war of independence in 1948-1949. Jordan’s subsequent annexation of those areas was never accepted as legitimate by the international community. In fact, only Jordan’s patron state Great Britain and Pakistan recognised that annexation. Even Jordan's Arab neighbours rejected what they regarded as a unilateral action by King Abdullah.
Therefore the refusal of the international community to recognise Jordan’s annexation means that the West Bank was never sovereign Jordanian territory for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions. The liberation of the West Bank by Israel restored the territorial unity of what had previously been Mandatory Palestine. Therefore, because the West Bank is not occupied territory of a High Contracting Party, the Geneva Conventions don’t apply.
And of course, the UN Partition Plan of 1947 was rendered null and void by its rejection on the part of the Palestinian Arab population and the entire Arab world. The Partition Plan was nullified when the first Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian and Arab Liberation Army weapon opened fire in what was proclaimed to be a genocidal war of massacre to annihilate the Jews.
It is also incorrect to bestow the status of an international border upon the so-called “Green Line” between Israel and Jordan. After their defeat at the hands of a nascent Israel in 1949, the Arab states – Jordan included – explicitly rejected a full-fledged peace proposal that would have involved mutual diplomatic recognition between Israel and its co-belligerents. They wanted to retain the right to recommence hostilities at a future time of their choosing, and thus refused to accept Israel’s legitimacy and right to exist. As a result, the Arabs insisted upon relegating the Green Line to the status of a cease fire line – the positions held by the opposing forces when the shooting stopped.
All of this completely undercuts Ben Saul’s trendy thesis about the purported illegality of Israel’s actions. No occupied foreign territory means no Geneva Conventions means Jewish settlement activity is quite legal and legitimate.
Saul’s entire argument is constructed upon a factual foundation of figurative sand.John in Brisbane :
20 Apr 2011 10:33:21pmI tend to shy away from anything trendy. I was there for the 70s and 80s but took no part in the wrong-doing. There are no pictures of me in a hyper-colour or "choose life" t-shirt. In fact, I am not yet convinced about this whole inter-web thingy. OK that last bit was crap.
Trendy is a rudely dismissive term. There is nothing trendy about being critical of the behaviour of the Israeli government. They are rich and powerful and still have some rich and powerful friends. There is also something a little too crafty and scary-crazy about certain elements within Israel. They are not acting in a vacuum but the behaviour of Israel is deeply troubling and no amount of bush-lawyer attempts to blind with BS will change that. Israel has become like a crazy member of the family that was never the same after that car crash.tokoloshe :
20 Apr 2011 10:47:24pm"But there is an extremely strong argument in support of the proposition that the West Bank does not constitute territory occupied by a foreign power, and thus the Geneva Conventions don’t apply. "
Is this your extremely strong argument????
Your post reminds me of a saying...
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t."
PS : Dr Ben Saul is a Associate Professor of International Law at Sydney Law School and a barrister, specialising in the law of armed conflict, what are your qualifications ?Paradise :
21 Apr 2011 8:50:13amI can't accept this wordy and one-sided assessment. The Palestine of pre-May 14 1948, should have become a free Palestine as an entity, with political representation of jews and arabs. Any annexation and separation of any territory large or small by any party should been declared illegal. Israel finished up more successfully acquisitional, but took territory illegally. No-one, jew or arab held legal title to schools, roads, bridges, public reserves, railways, etc. as private property with titled documents acceptable in any court or legal system. Israel is mostly stolen property; the same would have applied had arabs established a new Palestine incorporating acquired jewish property. Terrible attitudes, behaviour and interventions by UK and USA governments and other interested parties swayed the results. Today we have the vile fruits of aggression and supremacist attitudes all based on the hollow superstitions of ancient religions. Can either side bring a god, their god, to a court for questioning, interview, fingerprinting, even charging? Of course not, for it's a hollowness, a myth, and it has been used to murder, to steal, to justify and to perpetuate crime. How can it end? I met an exiled Palestinian in Jordan in 1988, forty years after he had been exiled by force. All he could say was "what can we do?" We can do something right and good, if Israel admits to its illegal inception, apologizes, pays compensation, restores rights to the exiled ones and starts talking sense. Not much sense here.Simple Man :
21 Apr 2011 12:52:33pmThat's great Jabotinskywasright. Sounds like you've figured out an excuse to believe this yourself.
That makes one of us.
Haven't you figured out yet that the "law" really doesn't matter here because no one agrees on what it should be or which "laws" should be applied.
So the the only rule here is "might" or "power".
The arguement occuring here is about political and economic preasure.Anon :
21 Apr 2011 3:43:04pmI have to disagree there.
As a rule, the Geneva Conventions only apply to conflicts between two high contracting parties.
However, there are a number of exceptions. Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts contains one of them:
"[The High Contracting Parties] shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to [a Power which is not a contracting party], if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
The occupied regions are not part of Israel. And Israel does not want those regions, since it would mean a one-state solution.
Therefore, Israel and the occupied regions are separate territories. And as long as Israel is a signatory to the Conventions, the Conventions apply as long as the occupied regions agree to be bound by them.
The occupied regions clearly do agree to be bound by the Conventions, judging by how often their rulers try to use the Conventions in their arguments.
Besides, this is desirable.
The Geneva Conventions cement the legality of Israeli military attacks, because of the established legal principles of collateral damage and military utility. Thus protecting Israel from conviction in court.
The Geneva Conventions also cement the war crimes of Hamas and her sister militant groups. Thus giving Israel the moral and legal high ground, which in turn forms the basis of the Western support she enjoys.
It is true that by applying the Conventions, the legality of Israeli settlements also become an issue. You have to take the good with the bad.
But Israel has a simple defense: The settlements are on disputed land. A peace treaty must determine final ownership of the settlements, before any question of legality can arise.
That is the reason why the International Court has not yet dealt with the issue, despite the anti-Israel crowd demanding it for almost sixty years.Eric the Echidna :
21 Apr 2011 5:17:57pmAnon:"That is the reason why the International Court has not yet dealt with the issue ..."
Which international court would that be, ie., one that has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter?
By "disputed land", I take it that you are referring to the Occupied Palestinian Territory?Anon :
21 Apr 2011 9:48:25pm"Which international court would that be"
The international court of justice.
"one that has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter"
Yes, in the sense that the ICJ has the jurisdiction to hear matters of international law.
No, in the sense that the ICJ will not involve itself in matters involving disputed territory. Such matters are dealt with by peace agreement.
"I take it that you are referring to the Occupied Palestinian Territory"
Yes. The territory is occupied. And at least two territories claim ownership over it. Thus, it is disputed territory.
Israel is the legal occupier. It is also the only successor nation with any claim over that land.
The Ottoman empire is defunct. British Mandate Palestine ended in 1948. Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims long ago.
So that leaves Israel alone. With the possibility that if Palestine ever exists in the future, it might have a claim too.
The outcome of the situation is clear.
All of Gaza and West Bank are disputed territory. The legal ownership of that land, settlements and boundaries will be determined by peace agreement. Or not at all.Eric the Echidna :
22 Apr 2011 9:15:01amAnon: "Yes, in the sense that the ICJ has the jurisdiction to hear matters of international law."
So, who can take matters to the ICJ?Eric the Echidna :
23 Apr 2011 3:46:15pmWhile Anon contemplates an answert to my question, here is a little assistance for him - from the ICJ website under Jurisdiction:
"The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction)."
Note the reference to States. Palestine is not yet a state for the purposes of the ICJ so does not have recourse to the ICJ.
Anon: "No, in the sense that the ICJ will not involve itself in matters involving disputed territory."
Consider the above circumstances and Palestine's situation in re the court. Also, sdee the advisory opinion the Court provided to the UNGA on Israel's security barrier. An example:
"The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law;"
That is an involvement, is it not.
Anon :
24 Apr 2011 2:17:10pm"Note the reference to States. Palestine is not yet a state for the purposes of the ICJ so does not have recourse to the ICJ."
I will remember to quote you on that the next time you try to argue that "palestine" exists as a nation. It is amusing you would say such a thing.
But there are exceptions to your simple comment.
A territory does not need to be a member state of the UN to qualify for hearing by the ICJ, as you know very well.
"Also, sdee (sic) the advisory opinion the Court provided to the UNGA on Israel's security barrier."
A non-binding opinion.
Since it has no legal effect on any parties, it is not relevent to this debate. Once again, you know that very well.Eric the Echidna :
25 Apr 2011 10:13:17amAnon: "I will remember to quote you on that the next time you try to argue that "palestine" exists as a nation."
I recall previously advising you to learn the meanings of the terms "nation", "state" and "nation-state". Note that my comment was:
"Palestine is not yet a state for the purposes of the ICJ ...".
A growing number of states do recognise Palestine as a state. I have also previously informed you of the UN's position in re Palestine.
"A territory does not need to be a member state of the UN to qualify for hearing by the ICJ ..."
When you make such statements you should provide substantiation.
"Since it has no legal effect on any parties, it is not relevent to this debate."
It is relevant to your claim that "... the ICJ will not involve itself in matters involving disputed territory."Anon :
25 Apr 2011 1:31:18pm"When you make such statements you should provide substantiation."
I could. But consider my position.
It is quite clear that the ICJ is not limited to hearings between UN member states. And you should know this very well.
If you *do* know this, then the post is spiteful. Demanding information which you do not require.
If you do *not* know this, then your post is ignorant of the law. And any reply I make is a waste of my time.
So here is my reply. I will *not* substantiate my post.
If I ever feel the need to justify my being correct, I'll spare a moment to re-read the relevent law. Like you should.
"Relevent to your claim (that the) ICJ will not involve itself in matters involving disputed territory."
Are you saying the advisory opinion has a legal effect on the parties? Or any legal effect at all?
If not, then how could the ICJ be said to be involving itself in matters?
Involvement requires influence on events. Some change in outcome. Or some effect on the events or results which occur.
The advisory opinion has no legal effect. If it had never been made, there would be no difference to the parties concerned.
Aside from that, disputed territory is a contentious issue. You already know what that means, or you should.Eric the Echidna :
25 Apr 2011 2:30:23pmAnon, are you not aware that other people read yoiur posts, not just me? Therefore it is helpful to those people to provide substantiation for claims you make. Particularly when you are not unknown to get things wrong.
Your comments about the ICJ advisory opinion is gibberish.
Amongst all that you posed a question to me. Let me remind you that you have yet to answer questions I put to you on the 12/4:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/55416.html#comments
Yet another example of your reluctance to back up your claims. Surely, if your claims were true then you'd be only too willing to substantiate them.
Sheilah :
26 Apr 2011 3:09:24pmEric, are you saying the sections which are taken from the ICJ website are gibberish?
You claim people do not answer your questions. In some cases they are so meaningless that it is not necessary to do so. It is preferable to leave you hoist on your own petard.
In other cases, they simply do not get through.Eric the Echidna :
26 Apr 2011 6:34:41pmSAheilah: "Eric, are you saying the sections which are taken from the ICJ website are gibberish?"
My comment to Anon was:
"Your comments about the ICJ advisory opinion is gibberish."
See the difference?Anon :
27 Apr 2011 11:19:51am"Your comments about the ICJ advisory opinion is gibberish."
My comment was clear. I said that the advisory opinion has no legal effect on the parties, or the land subject to the dispute.
You think that is gibberish? Then there are two possibilities.
The first is that you think the advisory opinion does have some legal effect. Which is clearly wrong according to law.
The second possibility is that you are simply objecting to my post as a reflex action, with no actual argument as to why.
"Amongst all that you posed a question to me. Let me remind you that you have yet to answer questions I put to you"
I did not answer your questions for a simple reason. You asked me to prove facts that are already well established.
Why should I prove that militants fired missiles at Israel for two months before cast lead occurred? Why should I prove that militants were digging a tunnel near the Israeli border?
These things are established fact. I know that. The readers know that.
Denying it serves no purpose. And asking people to prove what is already established is a waste of time.
Besides, you did not actually dispute any of the facts that I mentioned. I took that as acceptance.Eric the Echidna :
27 Apr 2011 12:06:54pmAnon: "I did not answer your questions for a simple reason. You asked me to prove facts that are already well established.
Why should I prove that militants fired missiles at Israel for two months before cast lead occurred? Why should I prove that militants were digging a tunnel near the Israeli border?"
On 09 Apr 2011 6:11:03pm you wrote:
"Seeing this tunnel as a breach of the ceasefire, Israel raided the tunnel."
On 12 Apr 2011 4:02:02pm I asked the following questions in response:
"Could you provide the conditions of the ceasefire agreementso readers can decide if a tunnel being dug in Gaza wasa breach?
Also, could you state whether Israel complied with the terms of the ceasefire agreement?"
So I did not ask about rockets or whether a tunnel was being dug per se. You are resorting to outright dishonesty.
Doug Quixote :
20 Apr 2011 7:23:24pmYes Dr Saul, that might work. Certainly a tighter criteria for the set of BDS is required; what Marrickville Council proposed was intrinsically absurd and far too wide to meet its goals.Julia Barghouti :
20 Apr 2011 7:09:52pmThe Marrickville council have most certainly NOT been "discredited". In fact, the council has now achived worldwide acclaim. The BDS movement has also become more known to more people who were not aware that they could help put a stop to israel's crimes in this non-violent way.
One needs to ask just where is Ben Saul's allegience? We are all part of the human family and Israel is commiting crimes against humanity. perhpas if he started viewing things through unbiased human eyes, and not soley concerned about one religious sect, he would see that after 60 years of injustice the BDS movement is way overdue.Em :
20 Apr 2011 8:48:46pmBen Saul didn't say Israel wasn't committing crimes against humanity. What do you think he means by "the paradoxically brutal, yet cavalier, plundering of another people’s inheritance", other than just that?
I think you would benefit from viewing this article through "unbiased human eyes", instead of assuming that simply because the author is (probably) Jewish, he is incapable of writing a balanced article on the subject. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, after having trawled through many the passionate (and sometimes vitriolic) opinion pieces that have emerged from both sides of the debate, this is likely to be one of the most objective articles I've ever read on the subject.fran :
20 Apr 2011 10:19:48pmBut Dr. Saul *also* says:
"The movement needs to do its homework TO FIND OUT WHETHER any Israeli, Australian or foreign companies in Australia are *in fact* exploiting Palestinian resources"
Obviously he does not have any proof to offer for his innuendo of "plundering". The Jews lived there for thousands of years and were ethnically cleansed from the so-called, "West Bank" in 1948, why shouldn't they reclaim some of their properties?
Dave :
20 Apr 2011 5:58:43pmOh please Ben, the Israeli Palestinian conflict is not going to be solved by appealing to some obscure article in the Geneva convention. The Palestinian lobby notched another loss which they can add to their long list of failures. In international affair might is right, therefore they should asked themselves why are we the perennial losers.Mje :
20 Apr 2011 10:35:45pmI think Mr Saul is correct. As Geoffrey Robertson points out in his book "Crimes Against Humanity", the importance of the Geneva Conventions is not so much that they can or cannot be enforced but that the behaviour of any government that is seen to breach the Conventions is now transmitted around the world to an international public. The result is collective anger, frustration, loss of sympathy and mounting pressure on all governments to ‘do something’. In this case, a perception of Israeli violation of international law isn’t just damaging to the current coalition of right wing factions now in government, but diminishes all Israelis and their supporters and their interests in the longer run. That’s why any party that believes ‘might is right’, and ignores those so called ‘obscure’ Conventions does so at its peril and its cost.Jake :
21 Apr 2011 1:44:53amExplain to my how the geneva conentions are 'obscure'.
It's a clearly stated charter that is there to protect human rights.
Baron de Charlus :
20 Apr 2011 5:57:48pmA typiically fatuous legal account that misreads the political fact that any boycott on whatever legal grounds would be met with as much ferocious opposition as the current proposed boycott.
Moreover, it narrows the boycott down to such narrow economic limits that it would not be worth the political pain of imposing it, which one can only presume was the author's intention.persep :
20 Apr 2011 5:56:03pmI am deeply suspicious of the reasons why this (the Israeli occupation) gets so much ongoing news time compared to all the other cruelties and injustices of the world. Syria has all but destroyed Lebanon, but no-one blithers about boycotting them. And if you really want a boycott that might mean something, how about boycotting China over Tibet? Too hard? Too costly? Not Jewish enough?
In defence of the Greens, they have several times attempted to raise censure motions against China over Tibet in Parliament, and been slapped down every time by our cowardly mainstream parties. And it wouldn't be an empty gesture, either -- just imagine the fury from our Chinese overlords! Why, they mightn't want us for their quarry anymore, how awful.
Though I must say, the notion of *Australians* criticising anyone anywhere for the "brutal plundering of another people’s inheritance" is simply hilarious. Have we no self-awareness at all? Or simply no conscience?Irish Observer :
20 Apr 2011 8:16:04pm"Syria has all but destroyed Lebanon, but no-one blithers about boycotting them."
Yes persep... and Israel has been a great supporter of Lebaneese sovergeinty...rossta :
20 Apr 2011 9:02:39pm...and a great supporter of Lebanese slaughter..Bearish :
20 Apr 2011 9:27:41pmThe UK still occupies the fourth province of Ireland, we here in Sydney occupy the land of the Eora people.
The article is well balanced... Does not deny the rights and interests of Palestinians but puts a more reasonable way to challenge Israeli presence in the west bank and gaza.fran :
20 Apr 2011 10:35:18pm"presence in gaza"? - Surely you jest.
Go ahead and show us one single Israeli in Gaza. (Good luck with that.)
Israel controls the coastline by prior, formal written agreement with the "Palestinian" government, who has only an economic "fishing zone" and Israel has sealed their own border with Gaza due to the incessant terrorist and suicide attacks, numbering well over 10,000.
Who can blame them? It's any nation's prerogative and responsibility to protect its own citizenry.JoeBloggs :
21 Apr 2011 4:15:12pmPoke someone with a stick often enough and they WILL punch you in the nose.
The whole conflict is as silly as London being at war with Essex.
Finrod :
21 Apr 2011 12:45:08amBecause we don't think they should persecute other people given their own experience on this matter. Because we always support them, we are seen as dishonest in the eyes of the other nations there. Many western nations have restrictions on Syria and Lenanon. You have not been very aware over the last 35 years, or perhaps you are too young. Would you like to know how Lebanon got that way? Why Syria is there? Why even the Israelis said Ariel Sharon committed crimes (had he not been Israeli he would have been indicted). Go read some Robert Fisk.Jake :
21 Apr 2011 1:47:59amNo. You're clearly wrong. The occupation before this whole marrickville fiasco got ZERO news time.
You are clearly blind.
Fred :
20 Apr 2011 5:48:05pmHow can we target boycotts against Libya (until recently Head of the UN Committee on Human rights), Syria, Yemen, Iran ......?
Dr. Saul and his colleagues in Marrickville deserve the derision they are receiving,andrewk :
20 Apr 2011 7:08:17pmOh Fred, you really shouldn't advertise your ignorance so loudly when you don't have to.
Australia already has significant sanctions against Iran and Libya.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/un/unsc_sanctions/iran_autonomous_sanctions.html
http://www.dfat.gov.au/un/unsc_sanctions/libya_autonomous_sanctions.html
Dean :
20 Apr 2011 5:41:51pmI don't know what to make of the plight of the Palestinians, Israel, etc. I don't know enough about it to make a clear judgement or opinion. But I fail to see why a local council should be getting involved in international politics. I live in the Marrickville LGA and I am a rate-payer. I want my money spent on garbage collection, filling potholes in the street, maintaining local parks, etc. I do not want my money wasted on things completely out of the local councils control or jurisdiction. International politics is something the Federal Government should be concerned with - not local councils!Ray Ray :
20 Apr 2011 8:14:14pmYou do not know because the media is controlled by Israel on this planet. The ABC fails also to tell the story from BOTH sides.
Try this link..
http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/israeli-escalation-in-gaza-is-a-cover-up-for-settlement-activity/Miki :
20 Apr 2011 9:33:13pmPerhaps all of those trumpting the lie that this is not a "local" issue would care to explain when human rights ceased being a "local" concern and why.
As far as I understood it, human rights is a universal concept which seeks to ensure that all human beings whatever their race, nation, religion, age and gender are afforded dignity, respect and decent living conditions. I was unaware that such things were bound by arbitary local electoral boundaries but apparently some people in Marrickville and elsewhere thinks this is so.
Human rights are no less a local issue, then they are a state issue, a national issue or a global issue.
And as for money being "wasted" this was slander perpetrated by the Murdoch press. As the Palestinian BDS national committee letter to the councillors noted supporting BDS did not have to cost the council any funds.
Bill Anderson :
20 Apr 2011 5:41:23pmIt's easy to say that people should be sensible about actions against Israel, however given Australia's obvious pro-Isralie stance, it is hard.
It seems we are worshipping at the alter of the one true god, money. I used to be proud when talking to my overseas freinds when it came to international affairs. Now I keep quiet, as I am embarrased about the "sale" of our common decency.
One day we will reap what we sowed, just like we did in Bali.R.Ross :
20 Apr 2011 5:38:15pmThis is an interesting and balanced article. I am curious however as to why Boycotts and Sanctions were appropriate against South Africa's apartheid state and it's treatment of its indigenous people and yet the inference here is that it is not as appropriate for Israel's apartheid State and its treatment of the indigenous Palestinians. Perhaps the difference in terms of law could be explained. Boycotts and Sanctions certainly brought justice through peaceful in South Africa and it targeted across the board, including sports (which really hurt) and cultural and academic as well as economic, why should not the same peaceful pressure be applied to Israel?H :
20 Apr 2011 8:22:37pmIt's inappropriate because Israel is not an apartheid state. It is a mature democracy.
The Palestinians self-govern through the Palestinian Authority.bob :
20 Apr 2011 9:04:48pmHilarious if it wasn't so tragic. Having just spent time in Israel and Palestine, I can say that by many measures of the definition of apartheid, there is truly apartheid going on. check the facts about the daily life of palestinians and tell me that they're not treated totally differently by the Israelis, who are the occupation force.rossta :
20 Apr 2011 9:07:18pm..not apartheid state, a mature democracy .. you must be deluded, and in due course will be very disappointed.
Marcus :
20 Apr 2011 8:52:22pmBecause Israel isn't an apartheid state. There is no comparison. 20% of the population is non Jewish. They have full civil rights, the vote, parlimentary representation, the whole kit and kaboodle. Gaza is self governing (if you could call it that). Fatah pretty much runs the west bank. What's your problem?Miki :
20 Apr 2011 9:49:55pmThe problem is that according to international law, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem remain under occupation and Israel is an apartheid state. Israel may have withdrawn from the Gaza Strip but they still control the land, sea and air borders and have turned the strip into one big prison. Article 42 of the Hague Convention notes that an occupation begins when territory is "placed under the authority of a hostile army. The occupation extends to territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised". It does not state that the occupier’s troops must be on the ground in the occupied territories at all time in order to exercise military control over that area.
As the Gisha, the Israeli Legal Centre for the Freedom of Movement, has pointed out Gaza remains occupied because of Israel's effective control of the region. The same applies to the West Bank, as Israel's military forces still retain effective control of the region, albeit the remain inside the terrority, unlike in Gaza where they retain effective from the outside territory boundaries.
In relation to apartheid, The Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid clearly outlines what apartheid is. Israel ticks just about every box.Marcus :
20 Apr 2011 10:34:46pmObviously Israel doesn't control all the borders of Gaza, so is Egypt also an occupying state and should we Marrickville residents boycott Egypt?
And to what extent does Israel control Gaza? Surely if they had control, in any real sense of the word, the could stop Gazans firing anti-tank missiles in the odd school bus, or murdering Italian "peace" activists?
The Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid focusses on race, not culture or religion and doesn't apply.
But thanks for the legalese.
Dave :
20 Apr 2011 5:31:56pmI support the BDS campaign and the Marrackville Council's original stand. I will heed 'international' when Israel and the USA do...Matt :
20 Apr 2011 5:28:38pmWell said!Irish Observer :
20 Apr 2011 5:28:19pmThanks for your article.
With regard trading in products from settlements. Would trading these products be in breach of UNSC Resolution 471 in which "The Security Council... Calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion [sic] with settlements in the occupied territories."
("Occupied territories" refers to "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem")
While trade may not specifically be considered assistance, trade does improve the viability of the settlements.tokoloshe :
20 Apr 2011 5:26:26pmBen - Thank you for putting this so succinctly and separating facts emotion and propaganda.
I have a couple of comments though :
I was born and raised in apartheid South Africa in the height of sanctions. I can tell you first hand how the sports & cultural boycott deeply affected the average white South African.
To be honest, the financial sanctions didn't really affect the average white South African. It affected farmers, corporations & government, but did nothing to the psyche of the average white South African.
Nothing, nothing, affected the average White South African psyche like the sports boycott of the Springbok rugby team tours of Australia and New Zealand. This was a shock that struck the deepest part of the South African white culture. It was a massive wakeup call to all.
It was unfair, and no-one understood why sports and politics had to mix, however that was the incident that woke up the average white South African.
The thing that most affected the youth was not being able to see international bands. This made the youth question the politics of what was going on.
As the 90's rolled in, the average SA could understand that apartheid had to go, however the seeds were sown into our psyche by the sports and cultural boycotts of the 70's and 80's.
That's why the sports and cultural boycotts are so powerful. Unfair to those involved, but incredibly powerful.gns :
20 Apr 2011 5:24:49pmBen,
You are missing the most important points.
1) Palestinian state never has been existed. Therefore the territory is not occupied but controversial.
2) Focus on Palestinian rights and ignoring Israel (Jewish) rights, makes any Israeli boycott brutal, unjustified collective punishment. Furthermore, if you take in consideration unbalanced anti-Israeli approach led by Muslim countries in UN and all international organizations, any additional action supporting this is ridicules bad joke.Ray Ray :
20 Apr 2011 8:25:06pmGNS.. You say.. "(2) Focus on Palestinian rights and ignoring Israel (Jewish) rights, makes any Israeli boycott brutal, unjustified collective punishment."
It is Israel and it's illegal actions and nothing to do with "Jewish" as in a religion, it's the actions of the Government. Also "unjustified collective punishment" What is the siege on Gaza Strip? They have no food, water, medicine, gas,housing, freedom. They are kept in the worlds largest outdoor prison being attacked daily from Israeli's. That is what I call "brutal, unjustified collective punishment."fran :
20 Apr 2011 9:53:37pm"They have no food, water, medicine, gas,housing, freedom. They are kept in the worlds largest outdoor prison being attacked daily from Israeli's"
These are statistics for 2010, mostly compiled by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics itself and released 15 days ago, April 5th, 2011:
70% of Gazans have BOTH television and radio, while 94% of "Palestinian" homes overall have satellite dishes.
81% of Gazans have cellular phones.
47% of "Palestinians" have personal computers, (about the same as Ireland and New Zealand and 3 times higher than in Mexico, Russia, Brazil or Portugal)
Almost every "Palestinian" home has a refrigerator.
22% of "Palestinian" homes have private cars, (higher than in 70 other countries).
84% of "Palestinians" are homeowners, (no, that's not a typo - *eighty-four percent*.)
Yet the "Palestinians" still remain the largest recipients of international aid on the planet, per-capita, after 62 years of receiving it.lyle :
21 Apr 2011 4:13:03pmThe problems in Gaza have little to do with Israel and everything to do with Hamas - the radical islamic jihadist regime that runs Gaza with an iron fist. A terrorist regime that is sworn to Israel's destruction, fires thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel, takes joy in and glorifies suicide bombing and has no interest in negotiating any compromise. In your zeal to attack Israel, you seem to have conveniently forgotten about these facts.
rossta :
20 Apr 2011 9:10:43pm" brutal unjustified collective punishment " .. sounds like Israel to me too ! Will they never learn.
fran :
20 Apr 2011 5:11:14pmNot being an attorney, I suppose that I'm missing an important point here.
You say, "... do its homework TO FIND OUT WHETHER any Israeli, Australian or foreign companies in Australia are *in fact* exploiting Palestinian resources"
and then you proceed to claim, "the paradoxically brutal, yet cavalier, plundering of another people’s inheritance" -- having just stated that very premise as not yet having been sufficiently established?
This type of "reasoning" illustrates why we apparently need the assistance of lawyers to comprehend it.Patrickdj :
20 Apr 2011 5:04:56pmDr Saul, thank you for this enlightenment on legal issues. Also I agree with your general analysis of the sanctions issue and indeed we should and must do what we can to bring the Israeli government into line in terms of its legal and moral obligations.
I shall say nothing of successive Palestinian governments' obligations that have also been badly applied.
You have though I think opened up a facinating can of worms when it comes to the duties of occupying forces as per the treaty made at the Hague in 1907. Let me start with the near past, how do Australia, Italy, France, England and the US stand on the exploitation of resources in Afghanistan since we invaded it in the name of stemming terrorism. How many non Afghani companies have profited from this.
Next maybe we should go back and look a Iraq, how many of the Iraqi invading countries and companies have profited directly from that invasion. What about the people of Tibet, how about the citizens of South Vietnam, then maybe we should look at all the eastern block countries occupied and exploited by the USSR. We can't of course forget Germany's occupation of much of Europe and North Africa, oops and I almost forgot the Japanese.
Maybe, just maybe, the whole bloody sorry saga needs to be put at the feet of the British and the French who carved up the middle east for their own benefit at the end of the first world war. Just where do you stop?tokoloshe :
20 Apr 2011 5:55:48pmPatrickdj
You missed the point.
It is not profiting from an occupation that is illegal in international law (no matter how morally reprehensible it is) but profiting from the illegal settlements.
To quote a paragraph from the above article :
"Secondly, Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, hosting 500,000 Jewish colonisers, are illegal under international law, in violation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. That rule also flows from the trusteeship principle, since a foreign military power should not alter the demographic composition of a foreign territory to its own advantage. This means that Israeli settler companies, or other companies which profit from constructing or supplying the settlements, are unlawfully assisting in maintaining the settlements."
Dr Saul specifically states that occupation is not illegal according to international law per se, but altering the demographic of the occupied territories is.Patrickdj :
21 Apr 2011 9:26:10amtokoloshe
I most certainly did not miss the point. Perhaps it is a great shame you may have missed the point and failed to recognise cynacism.
But, to take up your point about the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem I suggest you read the comment by Jabotinskywasright. The West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as present day Israel and the Gaza strip, were mandated to the British by the League of Nations during the Paris peace conference in 1919. In 1922 Britain declared the land west of the river Jordan to be called Palestine and the land to the east was Transjordan. The UN recommnded in 1947 that Palestine be divided into and Arab state and a Jewish state - the Jews accepted the UN decision but the Arabs did not. The UN General Assembly adopted this plan on Nov. 29, 1947 as UN Resolution (GA 181)
When the British left Palestine in May 1948 Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt invaded Palestine, when the war ended and a truce was called in 1949 Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This occupation was only recognised by two countries, Britain and Pakistan - none of the Arab states recognised it. At the same time Egypt occupied the Gaza strip. Security Council Resolution 62 called for implementation of armistice agreements that would lead to a permanent peace. The borders of Israel were established along the "green line" of the armistice agreements of 1949. This border has never been recognised by any Arab state much less the Palestinians. The division of the land remained much the same until the 1967 6 day war when Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank to repel invading forces. Israel has since departed most of the land it occupied.
Tell me though, at which point in history do you define ownership of Palestine that is agreed by all parties.
Marcus :
20 Apr 2011 8:59:47pmGreat, let's just keep blaming the British and the French for ever and ever. It's not like the local inhabitants have any agency whatsover. They are all just pawns of some dusty Anglo-French consipiracy.
You really haven't a clue. The west is spending billions tryhing to keep the peace in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. If would have been millions of times cheaper just to buy whatever there is to sell.
KDH :
20 Apr 2011 4:58:39pmProblem: The land in question is not occupied. Its borders have never been agreed upon. It was divided up by the international community in 1947. The Arabs rejected it out of hand; the Israelis accepted the proposal. When Israeli statehood was declared in 1948, 6 Arab nations attacked. Finally a ceasefire set temporary borders but the war continued through PLO attacks. 19 years later at 1967's Six Day War, Israel took out vital positions from which they were shelled. This was justified. The war has never been finalised nor borders agreed upon. Therefore this land is not "occupied" by Israel but unfinished business awaiting closure. Israel didn't start this war. Their activities have been defensive in nature since the beginning. Once the Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist, a peace settlement can occur.Ray Ray :
20 Apr 2011 8:33:52pmIn 1947 it was Israel doing the first strike. Same as in 1967. Israel has always been the aggressor but always plays the victim.. Israel is still the aggressor by waging attacks on Gaza and the West Bank every day , violating other countries air space, doing terrorist attacks in neighbouring states through their Mossad organisation.Marcus :
20 Apr 2011 9:13:01pmAt last! A little bit of history. What a shame the professor doesn't seem to have read any. You might have mentioned that the west bank was "occupied" by Jordan for those 19 years with not a peep from the Palestinian fellow-travellers. Or that Gaza was occupied by Egypt for the same period. I wonder what civil rights the local inhabitants enjoyed during these occupations?
David Olesker :
20 Apr 2011 4:38:10pmBen Saul simply takes it as a given that Israel's legal position in the disputed territories is that of a military occupant. He ignores the fact that no Israeli government (of any political color) has ever accepted that point and he doesn't even address arguments in it's favor made by serious legal scholars, including the late Prof. Julius Stone, one time Challis Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the University of Sydney.
Put simply, you can't be a military occupant of territory that doesn't belong to anyone else. There was no former sovereign over these territories and Israel has a strong claim to them under International Law. But you learn nothing of this in Saul's article.
I hope his courses at Sydney Law School aren't so lacking in objectivity.Marcus :
20 Apr 2011 9:16:23pmKeep on hoping!
But you raise an interesting point. The former sovereign was the Ottoman empire. Maybe the UN should give them back to Turkey?ant :
21 Apr 2011 9:34:31am"Put simply, you can't be a military occupant of territory that doesn't belong to anyone else. There was no former sovereign over these territories and Israel has a strong claim to them under International Law."
What international law is that? I'd be fascinated to know what international law says that people with legal documents that prove they own the land, which was taken from them by force, don't own the land. You've strayed into Orwell territory where black is white and lies are truth and war is peace. You're holding up four fingers and you won't get me to say it's five.
Franko :
20 Apr 2011 4:34:58pmWell said, but how many options do consumer have to boycott the type of businesses you suggest? I suspect not many.
Secondly, yes, countrywide boycotts are crude and can affect people who are opposed to the same things the boycotters are, but in many cases (South Africa, Burma, for example) those same people support the boycotts anyway, because they know that they are the only way to engage the attention of their government.
