Friday, 31 January 2014

OUTRAGEOUS: 24/1- THE CONVERSATION - Settlements illegal under what law? Take your pick, minister



http://theconversation.com/settlements-illegal-under-what-law-take-your-pick-minister-22341

Settlements illegal under what law? Take your pick, minister

Foreign minister Julie Bishop made news in Israel by declaring Australia would like to see which international law made settlements in occupied Palestinian territories illegal. Times of Israel
The Australian government has become an apologist for Israeli war crimes and a wrecker of sacred international humanitarian law principles. Last week, Australia’s foreign minister Julie Bishop asked to see which international law declared Israel’s settlements in Palestine illegal.
Australia’s new position contradicts almost 50 years of international consensus in the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Court of Justice.
The Abbott government earlier reversed Australia’s long-standing bipartisan opposition to the settlements in the UN.
During her interview while in Israel, Bishop also claimed that deeming the settlements a war crime “is unlikely to engender a negotiated solution”.
There is no credible legal basis at all for the view that the settlements are legal, unless the self-serving legal fantasies of Israel and its Zionist supporters are naively accepted. The government’s legal advisers would never have told the foreign minister that the settlements are legal. They are too good to say that.
That leaves two possibilities. Either Bishop never sought their advice, or she deliberately ignored it for political reasons.
Why are the settlements illegal under international law? The West Bank is foreign territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Occupied territory is governed by international humanitarian law.
The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies.
A violation of that rule is a war crime under Article 147 of the same treaty, and under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Australia is a party to the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. That war crime is also an offence under Australian law, in case Bishop forgot that the last Coalition MP to hold her job, Alexander Downer, legislated it in 2002.
The International Court of Justice, in its Israeli Wall Advisory Opinion in 2004, said that Article 49:
…prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organise or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.
Over decades, Israeli governments have actively encouraged the mass illegal migration and state-sponsored people smuggling of more than 500,000 Jewish settlers into Palestine. It has done so through a raft of special laws, regulations, policies and incentives, backed up by military force, social segregation and a compliant legal system.
It is strange that Australia, so concerned about illegal migration and border protection, is shamelessly backing illegal migration to Palestine.
Israeli and Zionist lawyers have long made bogus counter-arguments that the settlements are legal. Israel has often asserted that only forced transfers are illegal. Of course, that is not what the Geneva Convention says. Any “transfer” is illegal, including where settlers choose to move and the state assists them.
The rule is strict for good reasons. The law of occupationdemands that a military victor must not unilaterally change the demographic composition and social life of the foreign territory it controls. Otherwise the occupying force could simply colonise a captured territory with its own citizens, eventually making it impossible for the local population to restore or establish their sovereign right to self-government.
Settlements would therefore only be legal if the Palestinian people, through their representative political institutions, had agreed to them. They never have done so.
It is legally accurate to say that Israel has established illegal colonies by force in parts of the West Bank. Israeli leaders have very publicly proclaimed that they intend to keep them, prejudging fair “final status” negotiations.
Israel’s building of settlements on land occupied in the 1967 war contravenes international conventions and law in multiple ways. EPA/Jim Hollander
An even more extreme Israeli legal argument is that the Geneva Conventions do not apply at all to Palestine, because the law of occupation applies only to conflicts over the sovereign territories of two countries. While Israel recognises the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, the sovereign legal status of the West Bank has not yet been settled and Palestine is not yet a sovereign country.
Again, no country other than Israel supports this argument.Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions does not only apply to the military occupation of a state’s sovereign territory, but any territory, including where its legal ownership is disputed or yet to be determined. This is evident from the text and drafting of the conventions.
The International Court of Justice interpreted it in this way in its 2004 decision, decisively rejecting the Israeli argument. In any case, the customary international law of occupation applies even if the Geneva Conventions do not. It contains similar rules against illegal settlements.
Other bogus legal arguments have been advanced. One of my predecessors at Sydney University, Professor Julius Stone, claimed that settlements are only illegal if they impair the economic situation or racial integrity of the local population, or involve the inhumane treatment of those transferred. Stone argued that the settlements improved the Palestinian economy, did not affect the demographic situation and that Israel did not mistreat the settlers.
None of these purported conditions is found in the Geneva Conventions or in the legal practice of other countries.
In any case, Stone was writing in 1981, when there were only 20,000 Israeli settlers in a West Bank of 700,000 Arabs. Today, with 500,000 settlers in Palestine, it is likely that even a committed Zionist like Stone would have questioned the settlements. The economic impoverishment of Palestinians by the occupation and the security wall may also have made him think twice.
Australians deserve better from their foreign minister. At the very least, she should know what the law is. Every other country knows it.
But Australia should also stand against war crimes, not excuse them. It should fight for the Geneva Conventions, humanitarian principles and the rule of law, not undermine them. And it should not give succour to the dirty politics of Israel’s criminal colonial enterprise.

ARTICLES ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

 Sign in to Favourite Donate and become a friend of The Conversation

Join the conversation

147 Comments sorted by

  1. Comment removed by moderator.

    4. Nathan Grandel ofMelb

      Exercise Physiologist
      In reply to Jane Middlemist
      I am of the opinion that the nation of the Palestinians should get justice. They should get back 100% of their historical territories based on all the previous boarders that that they once independently controlled.
      report

    6. Mark Pollock

      Analyst
      In reply to Nathan Grandel ofMelb
      Hi Nathan,
      What borders would these be and when were they independently controlled by Palestinians?
      I think this is one of the causes of the ongoing problem in the region. Simply, did Palestine ever exist? The author hints at the issue but seems to imply that vis a vis Israeli actions it is not relevant but I am not too sure.
      report

    7. David Theodor Roth

      Postgrad History Student
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      "Simply, did Palestine ever exist? " I believe the first historical mention of Palestine is in Herodotus (ca 440 BC), then there was the later Roman province of Syria Palaestina (135 AD). So the name has been around a long time. Historically, the region has been inhabited by many peoples of different religions.
      report

    8. Mark Pollock

      Analyst
      In reply to David Theodor Roth
      Yes, I understand that "Palestine" is cognate with "Philistine", of biblical association, but in terms of an actual state recognised as such by its citizens has it ever existed? I don't know the the Turks ever recognised it as having any particular autonomy.
      report

    9. David Theodor Roth

      Postgrad History Student
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      Your question was "did Palestine ever exist?". There were various revolts under Turkish rule which were briefly successful, so it might be said that a state temporarily existed. But I think you need to look at the many popular histories of the area and make your own mind up.
      report

    10. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      You are being pedantic.
      An "independent Arab state" with defined boundaries was establised by resolution A/RES/181(II) of the General Assembly of the United Nations, on 29 November 1947. The UN had the authority for this resoltion because the decision was made "at the request of the mandatory Power", the United KIngdom. The United Kingdom was "the mandatory Power for Palestine"
      What the independent Arab State was/is called is irrelevent. If you argue that it is not legitimate, logic dictates that you must argue that Israel is not legitimate.
      What is sure is the the West Bank was within the defined borders of the independent Arab state as laid down by this resolution,
      report

    11. Gary Luke

      IT services
      In reply to Ken Alderton
      UN GA Resolution 181 was a recommendation, not a UN decree establishing any state. Britain didn't fulfill its specified obligations and the UN's authority was refuted by all member states of the Arab League. The newly formed state of Israel was the only party which complied with the UN's recommendations.
      report

    12. Stephen John Ralph

      carer
      In reply to Ken Alderton
      Britain wasn't that keen to establish Israel, it was pestered for years by the Zionist factions to create the nation.
      report

    13. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Gary Luke
      All UN resolutions are recomendations until they are adopted. A/RES/181(II) A was adopted on 29 Nov. 1947 by a vote of 33 for/13 against/10 abstentions more than the required 2/3 majority
      A key part of the resolution adopted is the clause "The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation" The Security Council does not implement recommendations.
      The fact that the Arab States refuted the resolution is irrelevent to the legitimacy of the UN resolution or the independent Arab state that it created.
      report

    14. Gary Luke

      IT services
      In reply to Ken Alderton
      No, it was adopted as a recommendation - "Recommends to the United Kingdom ... [etc]". Also no, the Security Council wasn't charged with implementation of the recommendations. It was to determine whether a threat to the peace etc had occurred. That's a third party named in the resolution which didn't measure up to the explicit instructions, the UN Security Council itself. And a fourth if we include the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, which wasn't established. Leaving Israel as the only named part to comply with the resolution. "Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall be preserved." Jordan also didn't comply. But never mind all this, just keep repeating that something or other done by Israel ever since 1947 is illegal as though no other involved party has done anything needing comment or reprimand.
      report

    15. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Gary Luke
      Go back and read the whole of the sentence. What did the Resolution recommend "to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations" ?
      It recommended "the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below"
      What did the UN General Assembly do? On the 29 Novernber 1947 it voted by more than the reqiured 2/3 majority to adopt the Plan of Partition
      It then…
      Read more

    16. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Ken Alderton
      I would also point out that the "United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations" constitutes the General Assembly.
      report

    17. Gary Luke

      IT services
      In reply to Ken Alderton
      "The point was that Palestine existed as an independent Arab state irrespective of what it was called." Antonius said it was the southern portion of Syria in the Ottoman Empire.
      report

    18. Nathan Grandel ofMelb

      Exercise Physiologist
      In reply to Nathan Grandel ofMelb
      Can I just ask why out of all my comments did the conversation chose not to remove this one, but feel it necessary to remove my other ones?
      Leaving it up and removing all the previous conversation leads to this statement being taken very much out of text!
      report

    19. Darren G

      logged in via email @yahoo.com
      In reply to Stephen John Ralph
      Im not sure that I would describe Zionist terrorism as "pestering" (Irgun Hagannah; the Stern gang). Some of us still remember the murders of many innocents when the King David Hotel was blown up and the murders of young british conscripts - kidnapped and butchered by Zionists. If that sounds like familiar then it should be obvious who Al quaeda learned its tactics from.
      report

    20. R. Ambrose Raven

      none
      In reply to Nathan Grandel ofMelb
      Zionist leaders had no trouble recognising the reality of Palestinian association with their land. Pre-war plans and execution of violence by Zionist leaders and thugs:
      -1- Herzl(1897): “Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor [Palestinians] must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”
      -2- Jabotinsky(~1923): “No native population would stomach the intrusion of another nation into their territory. So the gloves have to be off. Unremitting force is viewed as the only…
      Read more

    21. R. Ambrose Raven

      none
      In reply to David Theodor Roth
      Perhaps you might like to read the article? Palestine and Palestinians are oppressed and occupied, but the reality is that both exist.
      report

    22. Shirlee Finn

      Retired
      In reply to Nathan Grandel ofMelb
      Jane there is not, nor has there ever been a nation of Palestinians. They were a people invented in Moscow by the Soviet dis-information masters when they drafted the pre-amble for the Constitution of the PLO in 1965. The term Palestinian came into being on June 4th 1967. A people were created on that day. They even got themselves a flag. They removed the sat from the Jordanian one.!!
      They have no historical territories and the majority of the so-called Palestinians came from surrounding countries if you do a search of their surnames.
      report

    23. Shirlee Finn

      Retired
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      There has never been a state by the name of Palestine. The fact the original name starts with an 'F' proves it is not an Arab word. There is no such sound in the Arab langage
      report

    24. Shirlee Finn

      Retired
      In reply to Ken Alderton
      .......and never accepted not to this very day.
      1948, they choose to go to war rather than accept the UN’s decision to partition Palestine between its Jewish and Arab populations.
      1967 Israel offered to relinquish the land it had acquired in exchange for peace with its neighbours, the Arab world’s response
      issued at a summit in Khartoum, was not one no, but three:
      “No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.’’
      2000, Camp David offered Arabs a sovereign state with shared control of Jerusalem and billions of dollars in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and returned to launch the deadly terror war known as the Second Intifada.
      2008 Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas a peace agreement that would have guaranteed a Palestinian state in virtually all the West Bank, Gaza, and part of Jerusalem. Once again, the Palestinians turned down the offer.
      report

    26. Shirlee Finn

      Retired
      In reply to Darren G
      .....and I would add Darren that one of the first things the newly formed Sate did was to outlaw the Haganah.
      report

    27. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Shirlee Finn
      You are both wrong and pedantic. There was a Mandate of Palestine from 1922 to 1948 with a population that was 69% Arab. The "so-called Palestinians" that you say "came from surrounding countries" were those people who fled from Palestine during the conflict that followed Partition or their descendents or those who lived in the part of Palestine taken over by Transjordan, the West Bank.
      report

    28. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Shirlee Finn
      How about Feisal (or Faisal) bin Abdul Aziz al Saud. He was an Arab. Is that an "F" sound at the beginning? How about the name of first letter of the Arabic alphabet (abjadī sequencing) "alef" or "alif" Is that an "F" sound at the end? How about sound of the sixteenth letter of the alphabet whose name is "fa" is there an "F" sound anywhere in there?
      report

    29. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Shirlee Finn
      I forgot to mention that "Palestine" is of Roman origin. It was the name of the Roman Province Syria Palaestina formed when the previous Roman provinces of Judea and Galliee were combined in 135 CE
      Similarly "Britian" comes from the name of a Roman province.
      report

    30. Richard Clowes

      logged in via email @bigpond.net.au
      In reply to Nathan Grandel ofMelb
      Not only should the Palestinians get back 100% of their pre-invasion territory, but the arab refugees who fled the conflict (and their descendents) should be repatriated and their land/homes returned to them.
      Israel, in my view, is a terrorist state and if the Bible is to be believed, armageddon would be a fitting end to the Zionist occupation.
      report

    31. Richard Clowes

      logged in via email @bigpond.net.au
      In reply to Darren G
      Spot on, Israel was founded in terrorism and is still a terrorist state today.
      report

    32. Chris Borthwick

      Writer
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      Nations should have declared borders, and Palestine doesn't? A good argument; possibly too good. What are the borders of Israel? Can you point at an official map that sets them out?
      report

    34. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
      In reply to John Phillip
      From reading many of your comments John I know that it is you who is usually biased.
      Via a google cache I read the deleted comment and as is usual, it wasn't the issue raised, but the way it was said that made the comment not adhere to the community standards.
      report

    35. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Ken Alderton
      Ken, are you, in other words saying, that even though the UK had given notice on its role as Palestine Mandatory Power, that nevertheless, until the day after that formal relinquish of power, the UK still had the power to make major decisions over Mandatory Palestine, and one of those powers included asking the UNGA for advice on governance for Palestine post-UK-mandate? If you are, then I agree with you. Remember, the UK had some pretty awesome powers by virtue of its League of Nations mandate…
      Read more

    36. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Stephen John Ralph
      Stephen, actually initial support for a Jewish homeland in ancient Israel had very strong support from British Protestants since the mid 19th century; support, which extended throughout much of the establishment, but was most notably absent in the British Army, which had significant pockets of rabid anti-semites right through the ranks. The Jews were doing extremely well until the Stern Gang blew Lord Moyne (alleged one of the said anti-semites frustrating efforts to get Jews out of Europe) to smithereens…
      Read more

    37. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Shirlee Finn
      There has never been a state called Palestine. Before the Ottomans lost possession in WWI, "Palestine" was in fact divided in Ottoman administrative regions known as "vilayets" (three - Damascus, Hejaz, and beirut) and "sunjaks" (Jerusalem). Nor had there even been a people identifying as "Palestinians" until the 1970s. In fact, during the first half of the 20th century, it was the Zionist immigrants who were known as "Palestinians", they started the "Palestine Post" (now Jerusalem Post). The Muslim Arabs identified as Syrians, or just Muslims.
      report

  2. Andy Cameron

    Care giver
    While I am no shill for the Zionists, the UNGA is not a legal authority, the International Court of Justice has only given an "opinion" to the UNGA, and none of the UNSC Resolutions have been Chapter VII Resolutions. Israel is quite justified to stand its ground.
    report

  3. Andy Cameron

    Care giver
    Actually, the West Bank ceased being occupied territory once Jordan withdrew any claims to it, Not that Jordan EVER had any legal claims to it, given it was Jordan, which illegally invaded foreign territory in the first place.
    report

    1. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Andy Cameron
      You forgot to mention that the "foriegn territory" illegally invaded by Jordan was part of the "independent Arab State" mandated by the United Nations General Assembly. Therefore technically the lWesY Bank is still occupied territory since the Jewish people of the Mandate of Palestine recognised the UN Plan of Partition when they established the State of Israel.
      report

    2. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Ken Alderton
      Ken, the UNGA does not "mandate" anything. Even 181 itself makes very clear that 181 is not establishing any "independent States". That would take sometime over the net 10 months, once the UK had withdrawn. The only reason the UNGA seems to have such an independent role here is that power to provide security was still governed by the Mandate. In other words, the UNSC did not need to hassle itself with Partition Palestine, while Britain still had boots on the ground:
      "Independent Arab and Jewish…
      Read more

  4. Nathan Grandel ofMelb

    Exercise Physiologist
    “Israeli governments have actively encouraged the mass illegal migration and state-sponsored people smuggling of more than 500,000 Jewish settlers into Palestine” Can you please indicate where this place is? Boarders on a map, currency, year it was established, some history of this country?????
    Please provide evidence for statements in your article
    report
  5. This is a highly recommended comment.

    alan freeman

    insurance man
    Goodness me - here we have an argument put forward by a legal expert in the field ......... and we are still subjected to the one-eyed, totally biased comments of the ante- Muslim lobby.
    Whatever you do, Israeli apologists, don't ever let the FACTS get in the way of your ignorant views.
    I am no expert, and there may be areas of this Professor's argument that could be interpreted in different ways, and some rulings by United Nations, International Court of Justice and the guidelines set out by the Geneva Convention, that could have a different interpretation - BUT - is anyone seriously going to argue that these bodies have been set up by the civilised world to bring transgressors to task ?
    Julie Bishop, as with so many of this Government's Ministers continue to show their total ignorance of the Law !
    Great article, Professor !
    report

  6. Mark Pollock

    Analyst
    I have always been curious about what "Palestine" actual means? Is it the area of the west bank and Gaza? One or the other or both?
    Getting a good definition would help to determine whether a statement like "Settlements would therefore only be legal if the Palestinian people, through their representative political institutions, had agreed to them" actually means anything. . Who exactly are these people and where are their representative political institutions?
    report

    1. Patricia Philippou

      logged in via Facebook
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      Palestine is the place spoken of when Balfour said in 1917, well before the 2nd world war, "...for in PALESTINE we do not even propose to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country". ( from Edward Said "The question of Palestine"), before the European colonisors came to take the land off "the present inhabitants".
      It is also PALESTINE that was lied about by Israel Zangwill when he said " A land without people for a people without land'.
      It is PALESTINE that is spoken about by Theodor Herzi in 1895 when he wrote about taking it from the non-Jewish inhabitants, " We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border.
      Palestine included Semitic people of all religions in 1947; it was the European non Semitic Jews that came in 1948 who not only caused the tragedy, but used your fake question to justify taking their land.
      report

    2. Mark Pollock

      Analyst
      In reply to Patricia Philippou
      So it was made up by a British politician? Another line drawn on a map in Whitehall? Was the area that Balfour spoke of in any way similar to the current area of what is referred to as Palestine? Didn't it include all of Jordan too?
      report

    3. Henry Verberne

      Former IT Professional
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      From this article:
      "Australia’s new position contradicts almost 50 years of international consensus in the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Court of Justice".
      But no, Mark Pollock knows it all!
      report

    4. Henry Verberne

      Former IT Professional
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      You either did not read the article or chose to ignore it From the article:
      "Why are the settlements illegal under international law? The West Bank is foreign territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Occupied territory is governed by international humanitarian law".
      Bu no Mark Pollock knows better!
      report

    6. Shirlee Finn

      Retired
      In reply to Patricia Philippou
      I would suggest you remove some of that remark Patricia Philippou.
      I have the oral history of my family dating back to Spain in the early 1500s. I have been tested and my blood lines trace me right back the the Land of Israel.
      Hardly European.!!!!!!!!!!!
      The same applies to most Jews. We came from small closed communities and apart from the offspring of children of rape, we married within our Communities and as such our blood lines are quite pure.
      report

    9. Peter Dawson

      Gap Decade
      In reply to Shirlee Finn
      Shirlee, Sephardi Jews are genetically hard to distinguish from Palestinians. They both come from the same place. It's the Ashkenazi Jews who, it appears likely, have no biological roots in the "Holy Land." And with half the population of Israel being made up of Ashkenazi Jews, it's no surprise who the "fictional" Palestinians you speak of think are the real interlopers.
      report

    10. Mark Pollock

      Analyst
      In reply to Henry Verberne
      Wasn't the West Bank occupied by Jordan prior to 1967? Was that illegal or is it only illegal when the Israelis do it?
      So if the Israelis withdrew, who would they give the territory back to? The Jordanians, the Palestinian Authority or Hamas?
      report

    11. Richard Clowes

      logged in via email @bigpond.net.au
      In reply to Shirlee Finn
      I remember reading somewhere that DNA sequencing could not identify any genetic difference between Jews and other humans. If there was a gene that was specific to Jews then a biological weapon may be able to be developed to target that specific gene. Adolf Hitler on a horrendous scale, so lets not go there. Of course, if you are only arguing that most Jews are inbred I have no evidence to refute that argument.
      report

    12. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      Mark, completely illegal. Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, which I think about two/three nation recognized it (Britain, Iraq, and maybe Pakistan), same as when King Hussein declared East Jerusalem, "the alternative capital of the Hashemite Kingdom"! The really interesting thing here is that when Jordan annexed the West Bank, it declared all the West Bank residents Jordanian citizens if they wanted it. Hundreds of thousands of the Arab refugees (renamed "Palestinians" decades later) took up Jordan's offer, so should still be Jordanian citizens today, as should their offspring. But after Jordan lost the West Bank in the 1967 War, and gave up all its claims against Israel, Jordan denied citizenship to all its citizens living in the West Bank!! WTF. Basically, most West Bank Palestinians are Jordanians!
      report

  7. Patricia Philippou

    logged in via Facebook
    Thank you for your brave, principled article. As with anyone who criticizes Israel you leave yourself open to vicious person attack. I wonder whether the people who are so cavalier about Israel's actions would be equally happy should the situation be reversed. How would they feel should a militarily strong Palestine occupy and build fortified towns and roads for Palestinians only inside Israel. If they would not like this, what could be their reason? Surely the religion of the land thieves, Jews, and the race of the people whose land is stolen, Semitic Arabs, could not be affecting their opinions? To not view all the protagonists as equal human beings, regardless of race, colour and religion, would be hateful bigotry surely?
    report

    1. Shirlee Finn

      Retired
      In reply to Patricia Philippou
      The Arabs are not the Semitic people of the land of Israel as the name will tell you.
      Arabs ...Arabia
      Jews...Judaea
      Read your bible
      report

    2. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Shirlee Finn
      I prefer the Oxford Dictionary of English.
      Semitic, adjective,
      1. Relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
      2. Relating to the peoples who speak Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.
      The Arabs conquered and colonised the Byzantine province of Syria which included the present lands of Israel and Jordan in 636 CE. This is about the time Anglo Saxons started to colonise Britian in numbers. Does your logic mean that the English are not the Anglo Saxon people of England
      report

    1. Richard Clowes

      logged in via email @bigpond.net.au
      In reply to Patricia Philippou
      As a non-violent method of expressing an objection to Israel's murderous behaviour BDS seems to be an effective method. If it wasn't effective then the Zionists and their lapdogs wouldn't be reacting so vehemently against it.
      report

  10. Stephen John Ralph

    carer
    With many nations condemning the settlements, nothing ever seems to happen.
    In fact Israel keeps extending them as far as I can see.
    Why is there this softly softly approach to a country that is invading territory it doesn't have a mandate for.
    Surely sanctions are in order.
    report

    2. Michael Shand 
      Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Tester
      In reply to Jane Middlemist
      Yes, because the US always stand with Israel - they have to least fundamentalists Christians in America start loosing it
      Meanwhile Israeli Defence Minister and other leaders keep repeating things like "All THEY understand is violence, there is no point talking to them, they only understand violence"
      aka, all they understand is violence
      report

    4. Mark Pollock

      Analyst
      In reply to Stephen John Ralph
      Nah, I think the Israelis can handle themselves. The Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians are busy enough murdering each other.
      report

    5. Stephen John Ralph

      carer
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      I was talking in more a metaphorical sense......and perhaps financial as well. A lot of wealthy American Jews must funnel billions through to the mother country.
      I'm afraid I view Israel as a very aggressive and bellicose country.
      report

    6. Mark Pollock

      Analyst
      In reply to Stephen John Ralph
      So, tiny little Israel, pop about 6 million, surrounded by a couple of hundred million bloodthirsty jihadis, is the aggressor. Israel's brutal and dysfunctional neighbours waged wars of extermination three times in recent history against it. I would be bellicose in those circumstances. Better that than exterminated.
      This is the context in which the settlements, abhorred and misunderstood by the author, and you, are occurring.
      report

    7. David Theodor Roth

      Postgrad History Student
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      Actually there have been 7 recognised wars, various intifadas, insurgencies and other military operations since 1948. But the 1956 Sinai war/Suez crisis, in which Israel initiated military action, was part of the Anglo-French plan to retake the Suez Canal after Egypt had nationalised it.
      report

    8. Stephen John Ralph

      carer
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      I think if you have a look at the early history of Israel you might find bloody little episodes of brutality.
      They have a bellicose nature, their army has been brutal, their methods extreme.
      report

    10. Mark Pollock

      Analyst
      In reply to Henry Verberne
      Yes really. Without help. That cash also keeps them in the tent. A peaceful Middle East is in everyone's interests. The other wars could easily have ended in Damascus, or Cairo or Amman.
      report

    11. Henry Verberne

      Former IT Professional
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      But my point is that Israel is buttressed by US military funding. That is NOT without help.
      report

    12. Shirlee Finn

      Retired
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      The so-called 'settlements' occupy 4% of Judaea and Samaria. If, and that a huge ask, the invented Palestinian people ever decide to lay down arms, that we be included in a land swap deal which is already worked out.
      It will never come to pass even as Kerry is attempting some kind of a peace deal rockets from Gaza are landing in Israel.
      Do you think they want peace.?
      What right has Abu Mazen got to even talk peace. He is in his 10th year of a 4 year Presidency and seeing as to how he was kicked out of Gaza, he can't speak for the Gazan Arabs
      report

    13. Mark Pollock

      Analyst
      In reply to Henry Verberne
      I never said that they don't get help. I said that they could manage without it.
      US aid gives the Americans a say in how that aid is used. It's a stabilising factor.
      report

    14. Brandon Young

      Retired
      In reply to Mark Pollock
      "a couple of hundred million bloodthirsty jihadis"
      A truly sickening attitude. We will never have peace with such disdain for fellow humans. You will never have peace in your own consciousness if you can't overcome such hatred.
      report

    15. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Jane Middlemist
      Jane, historically the US has paid the Israel to restrain itself. If it had not been for the US, Israel would have complete sovereignty over Israel, the West Bank, and probably a fair whack of Syria,, and Lebanon too.
      report

    16. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Stephen John Ralph
      "They have a bellicose nature, their army has been brutal, their methods extreme."
      They never had anything of the sort until the mid-20th century. Gee I wonder why they suddenly butched up?
      report

    17. Stephen John Ralph

      carer
      In reply to Andy Cameron
      So what.....they didn't exist til the mid 20th century.
      And the Zionist movement preceding the formation was a nasty piece of work in many respects.
      report

    19. Stephen John Ralph

      carer
      In reply to Andy Cameron
      Well there is that to be said.
      But sadly that is the story of world conflict. The downtrodden becoming powerful and retaliation abounds.
      Look at Germany's treatment after WW1 and how they retaliated under Hitler.
      report

  12. Ian Alexander

    Reader
    Ben, thank you so much for your article. No doubt you will cop the wrath of the crazies supporting the illegal settlements but believe me, most people support your views.
    report

    1. Henry Verberne

      Former IT Professional
      In reply to Ian Alexander
      Yes a few of the usual belligerents are here defending the indefensible "right" of Israel to effectively occupy more and more of what was recognised as Palestinian land.
      For the record, I accept the reality of the Israeli state but it is not assisting the cause of a just peace which must involve the return of settled land and other occupied territories.
      Julie's Bishop's defence of settlement is unhelpful, partisan and probably contrary to international law.
      report

  13. Gary Luke

    IT services
    The legal status of Israel's hold over Judea & Samaria has never been the subject of a case tested in the international court. If Israel's actions are so clearly illegal then why hasn't any country or organisation been game enough to test it in a real court. It's far easier to keep repeating a couple of well worn platitudes.
    report

    1. Stephen John Ralph

      carer
      In reply to Gary Luke
      When Israel was created out of Palestine back when, the locals were displaced (although many stayed). That displacement via settlements is still apparent.
      report

    2. David Theodor Roth

      Postgrad History Student
      In reply to Gary Luke
      These legal points tend to obscure the main issues, which are negotiations about the return of certain areas to Palestinians and statehood for Palestine. It seems to me that you can't negotiate in good faith about the return of land while continuing to allow it to be taken or alienated.
      report

    3. Gary Luke

      IT services
      In reply to David Theodor Roth
      "negotiations about the return of certain areas to Palestinians". No, the negotiations are about the potential withdrawal of Israeli authority from disputed territories. Neither 'return' nor any synonym is used in UN Resolution 242 or other docs. So, sorry, 'return' is not one of "the main issues".
      "and statehood for Palestine". If Palestinians need to negotiate a newly created sovereignty with Israel's permission isn't that an admission that they understand Israel's legal position.
      report

    4. David Theodor Roth

      Postgrad History Student
      In reply to Gary Luke
      This is about negotiations for a modus vivendi, a treaty about land and who lives on it and living together in peace. Call it 'return', 'permission', whatever you like. Palestinians wish to return to areas from which they were displaced. You cannot negotiate in good faith while allowing the basis of negotiations to be undercut by settlers, some of whom believe in the concept of Eretz Israel, who take land against Israel's own laws and regulations.
      report

  14. Frank Moore

    Consultant
    What Julie Bishop, Julia Gilliard and all major parties recognise and react to is the power of money and demographics.
    Settlements are about power - changing the reality on the ground - over there.
    Over here, immigration changes the realities on the ground as well.
    100s of thousands of import focused consumers - with no hope of getting an export orientated job are stuffed into our dormitories of consumption otherwise known as our cities - every 6 months or so.
    Largely against the will of Australians.
    How do you get this mindless exploitation past the native population?
    You kill off their nationalism via "multi nationalism" aka multiculturalism.
    Invented by power mad foreigners in Australia for the benefit of those seeking to exploit Australians.
    What Bishop is saying is totally consistent with her domestic mindset and that of the majority of those in Parliament.
    report

    2. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Frank Moore
      Any soapbox will do to display your obsession. Just so we know which side we are supposed to be on, who are the "Australians and "native population" vesus the "power mad foreigners in Australia"?
      report

    3. Frank Moore

      Consultant
      In reply to Henry Verberne
      Henry, my views are totally opposite to "might is right".
      Immigration is a weapon.
      In the Israel/Palestine scenario, immigration is the most important weapon Israel wields.
      In Australia, the same weapon has been used against the locals for well over two hundred years.
      report

  15. Henry Verberne

    Former IT Professional
    To put it as simply as I can: the Abbott government is shaping up as a very bad international citizen.
    report

    1. David Tuck

      Scientist
      In reply to Henry Verberne
      I never, ever thought I'd see the day when the Australian government would excuse war crimes and undermine UN conventions designed to keep the peace. The current Australian government is a total disgrace.
      report

    2. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
      In reply to David Tuck
      Australian governments have a long history of excusing war crimes - to give two examples, Gough with the invasion of East Timor, and all our recent leaders with the illegal invasion of Iraq.
      Australia also has a long history of strong bias towards Israel - the wikileaks diplomatic cables showed that in some cases Australia's behind the scenes support for Israel was even stronger than that of the USA.
      But without doubt the Abbott government has reached a new low in making it explicit that Australian no longer cares about international law (except when that law is in our favour).
      report

    3. David Tuck

      Scientist
      In reply to Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
      Actually, the Whitlam government was dismissed on November 11, almost a whole month before the invasion which began on 7th of December. It is also widely believed that the Indonesians timed the invasion in order to advantage of the upheaval in Australia considering Australia's close ties with East Timor stemming from working together to repel the Japanese during WW2.
      The legality of the Iraq war is still questionable due to the fact that they broke treaties in place after the first gulf war. I personally believe that Saddam Hussein should have been imprisoned long before that after being found responsible for the downing of a plane containing all of the members of the then current OPEC commission designed to regulate global oil prices.
      report

    4. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
      In reply to David Tuck
      My main point is that Australia acquiesced to the invasion of East Timor - we don't have a proud record there.
      Yes, of course Hussein deserved jail.
      But Howard and Downer, et al share responsibility for far more death, injury, displaced people, and destruction than Hussein.
      If him having weapons of mass destruction was a justification then I know another middle eastern country that the world is certain has significant WMD :)
      report

    5. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to David Tuck
      The problem is that there is nothing in the UN Charter that allows the use of military force to overthrow a regime or make it abide by treaties. In fact it guarantees against this situation. The only valid reason for the use of military force against a state is correct a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" The first Gulf War was authorised because of the invasion of Kuwait.
      report

    6. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
      In reply to Ken Alderton
      And the second gulf war was illegal because whether or not Saddam had WMD, there was no credible reason for any Western power to consider Iraq an immediate threat.
      That is, even if Iraq had had WMD, the war would only have been legal if it could also be proven that other countries were under an immediate threat from these weapons.
      report

  16. Peter Dawson

    Gap Decade
    If only the Palestinians were cunning/farsighted enough to accept the UN's gifting of half of Palestine in order to create Israel, and thus become an official nation themselves back in 1948. It might help people today recognise how much gall it takes to suggest that Israel is perhaps the rightful owner of the half of Palestine it -wasn't- gifted in '48.
    report

  17. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
    Part of understanding this conflict is being informed about what is happening.
    I find it 'interesting' that the Murdoch Herald-Sun -http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/gaza-youth-shot-dead-by-israeli-soldiers/story-fni0xqll-1226810129832 and Yahoo News -http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/21027052/gaza-youth-shot-dead-by-israeli-soldiers/ - both report the AAP story of the shooting of a 20 year old youth at a demonstation by Israeli soldiers, but the ABC's on-line Just In -http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/ - has not reported this.
    Yet the ABC had plenty of spare electrons to tell us that "Bill Gates checkmated in 9 moves by 'Justin Bieber of chess'" and "Google must wipe ex-F1 boss's orgy photos: German court".
    Strong bias is not just in how a story is reported, but also which stories don't get reported.
    report

  18. Pat Moore

    gardener
    Thankyou for this article Professor Saul. And congratulations on all your good works in the world.
    The injustice of the invasion by 'settlement' procedure is undeniable as world opinion overwhelmingly attests. The US Zionist- (Jewish and Conservative Christian) backed lobby's influence on US foreign policy in the Middle East (documented extensively by Profs Mearsheimer & Walt) and its consequent effect in continually and permanently derailing any "peace process", to render it more of a deliberate…
    Read more

    1. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
      In reply to Pat Moore
      If I recall correctly, some of the diplomatic cables obtained by Wikileaks showed that under Labor some of Australia's diplomatic lobbying in the UN and elsewhere was more pro-Israel than even the USA.
      Bishop has taken an even stronger pro-Israel stance, but at least she is letting the Australian public know what she is doing. So with good reason I don't trust either major party to represent my views.
      On the question of whether Bishop never sought advice or ignored it, I fear that what we…
      Read more

    2. Gary Luke

      IT services
      In reply to Pat Moore
      Mazeltov. Almost 400 words about the secretive international influence of Israel's supporters without defiling your keyboard by typing the word "Israel".
      report

    3. Peter Dawson

      Gap Decade
      In reply to Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
      Libya under Gaddafi was the most prosperous nation in Africa. And, from what I can gather, Gaddafi was in the process of establishing an independent pan-African currency when, led by the French - who would be the first but not the last to lose from the establishment of such a currency - Libya was attacked by the West, and is today a broken nation.
      report

    4. Pat Moore

      gardener
      In reply to Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
      Exactly my point Michael. I said "Australian politicians from both sides of the political fence", Gillard also had "her man in Washington", a member of the Israeli lobby. Her and her partner went to Israel early in her prime ministership. It's a two party system/duopoly, supporting and ensuring Australia's position as a "client state" as Antony Lowenstein put it, that these subservient politicians deliver to Australians who elect them in good faith to be representatives of a sovereign country. If this is not the case, they need to clarify their and this country's position. In taking this radical reactionary and renegade position, Bishop is not representing the majority of citizens' views in this country but is serving the Zionist cause, Israeli, US and Australian. The Abbott government is turning this country into an international pariah because of the extreme far right forces it represents, the reason Murdoch delivered it into power.
      report

    5. Pat Moore

      gardener
      In reply to Gary Luke
      Israel, Israel, Israel...no "defilement" at all. That's not a 'persecution complex' (however historically justifiable) speaking is it? Just stating geopolitical facts around Zionism and its electorally unrepresented and undeclared political influences. I was agreeing with Professor Saul's position and was mainly examining the political dimension of Australia's position here under both its major political parties rather than discussing the Israeli "settlement"/incursion program as such.
      Australians consider they have a democratic right to transparent government which demonstrably under both major parties, they currently do not have.
      report

    6. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
      I am no fan of Julie Bishop, but with a Harvard graduate degree, and a former partner at Clayton Utz, I'm sure she's pretty confident navigating around legal arguments such as these.
      report

    7. Stephen John Ralph

      carer
      In reply to Andy Cameron
      Not to detract in anyway JB's achievements, she was (so Wikkipedia says) at Harvard for 8 weeks.
      I did not know that (as again Wikkipedia says) she is childless.
      Ironic the rubbish that JG had to put up with in the same context.
      report

    8. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Stephen John Ralph
      Oh OK, so she must have done one of those Harvard Advanced Management mini degrees. As I said, I'm no fan, but I think she can hold her own on this issue.
      report

  19. Gary Luke

    IT services
    Professor Julius Stone's view was that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal under international law, and do not constitute a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 49(6)). He stated:
    "Irony would...be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that...the West Bank...must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary…
    Read more

    1. David Theodor Roth

      Postgrad History Student
      In reply to Gary Luke
      Plenty of sophistry is involved in importing a Nazi term (Judenrein) into today's context. Some of the West Bank settlements are illegal against Israel's own laws and zoning regulations.
      report

    3. Gary Luke

      IT services
      In reply to David Theodor Roth
      The subject of the original article is that no Jews should live in Judea and Samaria. Incidentally, does that apply to Arab and other non-Jewish citizens of Israel who live there or only to Jews? Ben Saul's main reference is the convention drafted in response to the Nazi Judenrein policies, so in that historical context it is an appropriate shorthand term. And yes, you're correct - some of the settlements are illegal under Israel's own laws and zoning regulations. So are many houses in East Jerusalem and even whole villages in other parts of Israel. Courts in Israel are able to make impartial judgements about them based on complex mixtures of laws from the Ottoman era, Jordanian occupation and Israel's own legislation. No international laws are needed for those decisions.
      report

    4. David Theodor Roth

      Postgrad History Student
      In reply to Gary Luke
      'Judenrein' is inappropriate. Its historical context is anachronistic today. There is no context of waiting cattle cars, no infrastructure of concentration, death and labour camps, no ghettos, no Einsatzgruppen, no medical experiments, no gas chambers.
      report

    6. Andy Cameron

      Care giver
      In reply to Gary Luke
      I gotta say, I wonder how the Geneva Conventions are supposed to apply to Israel in Samaria, Judea, and Jerusalem. Just who is this "foreign power", and "Higher Contracting Party" to the Geneva Conventions, and where is there sovereign territory allegedly "occupied" by Israel? Surely, and Law student would spot this straight away?
      report

  20. R. Ambrose Raven

    none
    Many of the most fundamental problems of the Zionist state do indeed seem to arise from its very existence as a religious state, which by its nature requires discrimination against everything and everybody inconsistent with Israel being the land of the Jewish people (i.e. terra nullius Syria Palaestina).
    Zionist assertions of a entitlement by today’s Jews on the basis of a historical association to historical Palestine are equally false; not only are the great majority of Israeli Jews not Semites…
    Read more

  21. Robert Jones

    Retired
    Wadda load of old rubbish. Pedantic this, pedantic that. When will you all learn that there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East. It is not in the interests of either Israel or the Arab states.
    1. Israel contains people of such diversity that it would be impossible to unite them without an external threat.
    2. Whilst a conflict exists with its neighbours, Israel feels free to commandeer all the natural resources of the region, especially water.
    3. The impoverished populations surrounding Israel…
    Read more

  22. Karl Lusdig

    Private sector
    Only a depraved sadist could wish for a Palestine that's more like Palestine and less like Israel.
    report

  23. Lynne Newington 
    Lynne Newington is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Researcher
    I recently came across an old documentry I recorded on the massacre at the 1972 Munich games by Black September terrorists with an interview with the last remaining member, which pales this recent squabble into oblivion.
    It sure was a way to gain worldwide attention.
    report

  24. Phil Dolan

    Viticulturist
    Good article Ben and of course the settlements are illegal.
    I'ts interesting going through the comments, quotes and facts from Roman times and all since. Bringing it up to date with regards peace though, unless both sides want it, there will never be.
    One side says that they build settlements therefore we send rockets. The other that they refuse to negotiate so we may as well build settlements.
    For my part, and I have family in Israel, as a free democratic society, they should show leadership…
    Read more

  25. Greg North

    Retired Engineer
    There is reference in the article to occupation of the west bank following the 1967 war and the assertation of the illegality under the Geneva Convention but in the BBC article linked to by the author there is a description of Israel as having borders with Jordan and Egypt which begs the question of what is the homeland for stateless Palestineans.
    That is made all the more complex through Israel only having been in existence following WW2 and the lands which form it having been known as Palestine and so it is a question of interpretation as to whether Israel, formed out of recognition by the fore runner to the UN, the League of Nations post WW1 is actually occupying what is known as the West Bank or is just developing land which they made available for Palestinians to settle in.
    There is also a considerable and growing percentage of Israelis (West Bank excepted) that are of Palestinian ancestry and Muslim, something also of concern to Jewish Israelis.
    report

    1. Ken Alderton

      PhD student, former CEO
      In reply to Greg North
      In 1948, Jordan, or Transjordan as it was at the time, occupied the area designated for the "independent Arab state" by the UN Plan of Partion" that created Israel. This occupied territory is the West Bank. Similarly Egypt occupied Gaza, another part of the designated "independent Arab state". This is why there is "a description of Israel as having borders with Jordan and Egypt"
      The 1,658,000, Arabs in pre 1967 Israel, 20.7% of the population. are Israeli citizens. As you can see from these conversations there is some concern about "foreigners" in Australia among some "Australians". They don't speak for all of us.
      report

    3. Gary Luke

      IT services
      In reply to Greg North
      "there is a description of Israel as having borders with Jordan and Egypt which begs the question of what is the homeland for stateless Palestineans"
      Look at a map. There's a border between Israel and Jordan running north and south of the west bank, and a border between Israel and Egypt running south of Gaza. None of these borders infringe on the areas which are subject to negotiations between Israel and Palestinians.
      report

    1. Peter Dawson

      Gap Decade
      In reply to Lynne Newington
      There's a reason many of us have never heard of the Edmond Levy Report (former Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, who Uri Avnery calls a "shyster," and others call a "Likud Party hack"), it's because it would be an international PR nightmare for Israel if it did officially adopt it. It's not for Israel to commission a Likudnik judge to pronounce its occupation of Palestinian territory to be "legal under international law." Though that they did.
      Read more

    2. Lynne Newington 
      Lynne Newington is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Researcher
      In reply to Peter Dawson
      No doubt there will be difference of opinions, but at least the comments will be on an even footing and subscribers if really serious can read for themselves and do the checks and balances.
      Even some Israeli lawyers can get it wrong, David Singer had a lead article on the subject sometime ago worth a read ;
      Daphne Anson: David Singer on the legal staus of Jewish settlements.....
      report

  27. Joy RIngrose

    Retired Maths/Science teacher
    The Australian government does not speak for fair-minded people on this issue. It is heartbreaking to see, night after night on the news, the atrocities committed against the Palestinians. With no voting rights, severe segregation, and constant theft of their land and homes, these people are being treated abominably, and I for one am deeply ashamed that our government is condoning this. Because of the appalling parliamentary behaviour that has occurred here in the past four years the national character in changing and our once generous, compassionate psyche is being badly eroded.
    report

  28. John Phillip 
    John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Grumpy Old Man
    Ben, your final paragraph is interesting in that you made no metion of the visit to the Syrian leader by members of your university. You also make no mention of the racist, antisemitic policies of one of your faculties regarding the BDS. Why is this so?
    report

    1. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
      In reply to John Phillip
      To those locked into the view that their side is right, just meeting with the other side is proof of bias.
      How can any progress be made when it is considered wrong to talk to 'the other side'?
      report

    2. Gary Luke

      IT services
      In reply to Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
      If Syria is "the other side" then you're making a heavy implication that leading members of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies are aligned with one side of the conflict, that they're not impartial arbitrators. Although that's been a regular accusation surely you didn't mean to let that cat out of the bag.
      report

    4. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)
      In reply to John Phillip
      If you want to talk about an issue to resolve it then you need to talk to both sides.
      Boycotting Israeli scientists has nothing to do with understanding the views of both sides of this political debate. What the boycott does is to try to create change by making a political point.
      Or in short, no.
      report

  29. Chris Borthwick

    Writer
    The arguments of the Palestine deniers ("There is no country of Palestine and therefore we can't be occupying it") are frankly bizarre.
    The issue isn't "Is the west bank Palestine?"; the issue is "Is the west bank Israeli?" and here neither answer really helps the Tel Aviv government. If the west bank isn't Israeli, the Israelis shouldn't be settling it; if it is Israeli, then the inhabitants are citizens and should get a vote and shouldn't be shot at.
    report

  30. Brandon Young

    Retired
    If there are three types of conservatives as I characterised on another thread, the Cruel Manipulators, the Sad Believers and the Idiot Libertarians, where does Julie Bishop fit?
    How much is daft belief, and how much is malevolent intent, whether her own personal agenda or someone with leverage over her?
    Same question about Tony Abbott.
    My other comment:
    "The Cruel Manipulators are the ones who invent, manipulate and pretend to believe in the ideology for the sake of shaping the world to serve their own interest. They are smart and selfish.
    The Sad Believers are those who actually believe the narrative, despite being exploited by it. They are ignorant and selfish.
    The Idiot Libertarians are those who are sharp enough to realise that the narrative is crap, but not sharp enough to see why it is necessary to maintain power. They are self hating conservatives, who are selfish enough to subvert their own intellect."
    report

  31. Russ Hunter

    Health Care Professional
    It reminds me of Abbott's "difficult things happen" comments which effectively condoned war crimes in Sri Lanka before he gave them two of our naval boats to stop asylum seekers. The motivation in that case was pretty obvious.
    I wonder what this is all about?

lll
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)