[redcarpet]

Since when, exactly, can't Israel keep a military occupation without sending settlers to the occupied territory?

Since Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention.

[wat0n]

Why? On the contrary, the prohibition to send settlers means that Israel should remove them immediately but that the presence of soldiers is not really against the Convention.

[Heinie]

Why? On the contrary, the prohibition to send settlers means that Israel should remove them immediately but that the presence of soldiers is not really against the Convention.

The Palestinians have a right to their freedom and have been patient for too long. The Israelis have been in occupied Palestine for 49 years during which time they have negated their inherent responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights of all those under their effective control. This occupation should have ended decades ago when the 1967 war ended. According to international law, occupation is supposed to be temporary (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, according to whom occupation is "a transitional period following invasion and preceding the agreement on the cessation of the hostilities." § 214
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/naletilic_martinovic/tjug/en/nal-tj030331-e.pdf
In violation of international law, the Israelis have turned their occupation of Palestine into a permanent condition. Without question, Israel is a rogue belligerent state which enjoys the full backing of the United States.

[Zionist Nationalist]

This occupation should have ended decades ago when the 1967 war ended

It was impossible since the Arabs refused to make any negotiations

[Heinie]

It was impossible since the Arabs refused to make any negotiations

The so-called negotiations have been going on as a spectacle for decades. Everyone knows the Israelis use talk as a ploy to maintain the occupation. The 1967 war ended 49 years ago.

[Zionist Nationalist]

The so-called negotiations have been going on as a spectacle for decades. Everyone knows the Israelis use talk as a ploy to maintain the occupation. The 1967 war ended 49 years ago.

you said the occupation should have ended right after 1967 but it was impossible at that time

Israel indeed did mistakes like building lots of settlements over the west bank but the Palestinians are not saints as you think
they never concentrated on trying to create their own state they rather tried to fight and destroy Israel whenever it was possible also they have ruined Lebanon and killed and raped the Lebanese for decades
thats how their thanked Lebanon for accepting them in
other Arabs didnt wanted them because they knew what kind of filth they are

[Political Interest]

Israel can try to hold onto the West Bank but the Zionists should not expect me or any other Westerner to pay for it.

[wat0n]

The so-called negotiations have been going on as a spectacle for decades. Everyone knows the Israelis use talk as a ploy to maintain the occupation. The 1967 war ended 49 years ago.

The negotiations with the Palestinians began in the '90s, though, in 1967 there wasn't even a possibility of that.

Israel should have taken the opportunity it was given and dumped the West Bank on Jordan in 1987, and let them deal with the Palestinians.

[Rich]

The settlements weren't mistakes. They would only have been mistakes if the builders had planned to return the land. Only retards would have built settlements if they planned to return the land and the builders were not retards. No the purpose of the settlements is to annex land to Israel, why would any one deny this? Except that some would claim that as the successor state to Hasmonean Israel, the land has never stopped being Israeli, its just been illegally occupied as per international law.

The purpose of the settlements is to create facts on the ground. A few may be removed as they were from Gaza to give the impression that Israel is compromising, but the large majority are permanent short of Israel being wiped off the map.

[wat0n]

The Palestinians have a right to their freedom and have been patient for too long. The Israelis have been in occupied Palestine for 49 years during which time they have negated their inherent responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights of all those under their effective control. This occupation should have ended decades ago when the 1967 war ended.

And the Israelis also have the right to demand that the Palestinians negotiate, and provide guarantees that they will not attack Israel - just like Egypt and Jordan did.

According to international law, occupation is supposed to be temporary (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, according to whom occupation is "a transitional period following invasion and preceding the agreement on the cessation of the hostilities." § 214
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/naletilic_martinovic/tjug/en/nal-tj030331-e.pdf
In violation of international law, the Israelis have turned their occupation of Palestine into a permanent condition. Without question, Israel is a rogue belligerent state which enjoys the full backing of the United States.

See? Even that definition includes the idea that an occupation generally ends after the parties in conflict sign of an agreement on the cessation of hostilities (though the definitions in The Hague Conventions don't include any provisions regarding the duration of an occupation, or how should they end).

Just because an occupation is temporary, it doesn't mean it can't last for a long period - for as long as both sides cannot agree to an end of hostilities, that is.

The idea behind stating that an occupation is a temporary affair is to make it clear that it's not a permanent transfer of territory from the occupied state to the occupying power, but there is no actual provision regarding how long can an occupation last before it becomes illegal (and indeed, if there was one then it would undermine the whole point of negotiating in good faith).

[Heinie]

...
See? Even that definition includes the idea that an occupation generally ends after the parties in conflict sign of an agreement on the cessation of hostilities (though the definitions in The Hague Conventions don't include any provisions regarding the duration of an occupation, or how should they end). ...

In 1967 the war was against Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Israel has not been at war with these countries for decades. The Israelis need to do as the United Nations required in UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 and quit the occupation. The Six Day War ended that year. The Palestinians are being denied their right to self determination. Everyone except the Israelis acknowledge this.

"UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon commented Tuesday on the recent wave of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, saying it was part of "human nature" to react to an occupation."
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.699686

[wat0n]

Jordan only renounced its claim to the West Bank on 1988, precisely as a result of the First Intifada.

Furthermore, the idea can also extend to conflicts between States and non-State actors, and in any event both the Egyptian and Jordanian presence in Gaza and the West Bank were belligerent occupations. Indeed, Egypt never considered Gaza to be part of its territory while, despite the fact that Jordan annexed the West Bank, only the UK and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The international community considered both territories to be occupied even before 1967.

At last, Israel and Syria are still in a state of war, and both States consider this to be the case.

[Heinie]

...
At last, Israel and Syria are still in a state of war, and both States consider this to be the case.

No one believes Israel is at war with Syria but everyone knows the Israelis are occupying Palestine.

[wat0n]

No, you don't believe Israel and Syria are formally at war, but both States certainly do believe so and in fact the existing agreements between them make that clear.

8. This agreement is not a peace agreement. It is a step toward a just and durable peace on the basis of Security Council Resolution 338 dated October 22, 1973.

[Heinie]

Netanyahu says a two-state solution is impossible
Although Benjamin Netanyahu says he really and truly wants to recognize the state of Palestine, he regrets that it will never happen. The reason he is giving this week is two-fold, namely, the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and the Palestinians want the right to defend themselves.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-situation-not-ripe-for-two-state-solution/
Israel recognizes many states, including Egypt and Jordan, which, in turn, recognize Israel but not "as a Jewish state". In fact, no country in the world recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. Yet, the Israelis are demanding this condition from the Palestinians. Secondly, every country has the right in international law to defend itself but the Israelis want the Palestinians to renounce this right by pledging never to have a defense force. It is clear that the Israelis plan to keep Palestine under occupation forever.

[Zamuel]

every country has the right in international law to defend itself but the Israelis want the Palestinians to renounce this right by pledging never to have a defense force. It is clear that the Israelis plan to keep Palestine under occupation forever.

Consider then political strategy. Israel essentially desires one thing, a secure state. Territory has value, but is not the primary consideration. Israel's opponent(s) must be strategically forced to accept and assure this security. They do NOT want to do that. OK?

One element of Israel's strategy is to occupy disputed territory ... their occupation -IS- legal. Settlement of that territory is not, BUT ... if settlement takes place, it WILL eventually establish recognizable rights ... this puts pressure on the opponents, it's MILD pressure, not irrational aggression, just a systematic degeneration of a territorial reward desired by the opposition. At some point it is hoped that pressure coupled with other strategic programs motivates the opposition to grant Israel the security it desires by some mutually acceptable means that is open to negotiation. It's pretty obvious the pressure -IS- having an effect ... But it's necessary to keep in mind that political strategy is not a predefined composition, it's an improvisation.

Zam

[Heinie]

... Israel essentially desires one thing, a secure state. Territory has value, but is not the primary consideration.

Whatever about primary or secondary, you do not understand the Israelis if you think they do not want the land. They already call the West Bank Judea-Sumeria. Their state is built on stolen Palestinian land and the occupation is a continuation of this.

Israel's opponent(s) must be strategically forced to accept and assure this security.

Israel has many opponents who are not required by international law to disarm.

They do NOT want to do that. OK?

The Palestinians want self determination and to retain their right to self defense.

One element of Israel's strategy is to occupy disputed territory ...

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is not "disputed territory". International law recognizes Palestine as occupied by Israel.

their occupation -IS- legal.

Occupation is only legal until there is an end to the war during which the occupation took place. Israel is not at war with Palestine or Jordan. Occupation is not supposed to continue for generations.

Settlement of that territory is not, BUT ... if settlement takes place, it WILL eventually establish recognizable rights

The Jewish settlements are illegal and their continuation does not establish any right of the Israelis to claim them as part of Israel.

... this puts pressure on the opponents, it's MILD pressure, not irrational aggression, just a systematic degeneration of a territorial reward desired by the opposition. At some point it is hoped that pressure coupled with other strategic programs motivates the opposition to grant Israel the security it desires by some mutually acceptable means that is open to negotiation. It's pretty obvious the pressure -IS- having an effect ... But it's necessary to keep in mind that political strategy is not a predefined composition, it's an improvisation.

Israel's attempt to annex East Jerusalem and the settlements is what makes a just peace less likely.

[pugsville]

. Israel essentially desires one thing, a secure state. Territory has value, but is not the primary consideration. Israel's opponent(s) must be strategically forced to accept and assure this security. They do NOT want to do that. OK?

As many Zionist/Israeli leaders, political parties, political movements in Israel at various times have advocated a greater Israel and Israeli leaders have often (not always) chosen greater Israel of security or peace with their neighbours, saying acquisition of is not a primary concern seems to go against Israeli History. Going to war into order to get more territory was a primary motivator in 1956 and a large part of the thinking in 1948 and 1967.

In 1956 Ben Gurion proposed in talks with France and the UK when they were plotting their war of aggression against Egypt, that Israel get the West Bank, the Golan, and Southern Lebanon.

Many Israelis do want more territory and they are not without influence and at times have dictated Israel's actions.

[Zamuel]

One element of Israel's strategy is to occupy disputed territory ...

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is not "disputed territory".

You sure seem to be "disputing" it. AND the "settlers" are definitely disputing it.

International law recognizes Palestine as occupied by Israel. - The Jewish settlements are illegal and their continuation does not establish any right of the Israelis to claim them as part of Israel.

Yes and no ... While settlements are technically in violation, there is no provision to police such violations, beyond Israel's own "occupational" policies. Obviously the settlers "Dispute" this concept and assert their ownership as a "right of tenancy" which has CENTURIES of legal precedent supporting it ... they have a tenable legal argument, which political bodies like the UN cannot tacitly ignore. Displacing them would be as much a crime against humanity as the claims you make to support the Palestinians. SO, even though they are disobedient, they are establishing legitimate claims. Being -Israeli- settlers, Israel becomes an interested party and could eventually justify annexation. WHICH brings us back around to Political Strategy and Israel's use of this factor to create pressure ... and proves my great grandpa's old maxim, "when the deck is stacked against you - cheat like hell."

Israel's attempt to annex East Jerusalem and the settlements is what makes a just peace less likely.

PEACE is usually achieved after one opponent beats the other so often and so badly that the opponent cries uncle. This pattern reveals itself again and again in Arab / Israeli conflicts ... Israel sees this is just another defeat for the Arabs that will move them closer to surrender. They're probably right (again.)

Zam

[QatzelOk]

The First Solution to the Palestinian problem was to make them second class citizens in a Jewish state.
The Second Solution was to displace Palestinians and transport them outside of the state.
The Final Solution is to create ghettos in the conquered Palestinian Territories.

Sounds familiar enough.

When you start from a vantage point of racial-privilege and extreme ethno-centrism, these kinds of "solutions" are what emerge.

The "peace process" is an interesting way to brand the PR that Israel uses to ethnic-cleanse Arab land. Mass media marketing seems to have replaced any kind of natural decency or honesty.