David Singer,

"Your Jew-hatred is clearly expressed for all to see - virulently expressed under the cloak of anonymity."

Since you've mentioned "unanswered challenges", I've previously challenged you to provide examples of anti-Semitic comments that I've made. Please note, criticism of the policies of the nation-state of Israel and of the racist Zionist ideology are not anti-Semitic in themselves.

Russell Walton

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5 contains the text of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In it is the following:

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The settlements of Israeli civilians have been set up with the approval and support of the occupying power thus constituting a transfer and are therefore illegal. A resolution stating that in the UN was blocked by a US veto.

Since there has been no peace treaty signed Israel has a right to have an occupying army in the territories and even have dependents of army personnel living with members of the Israeli Armed Forces. However, it does not have a right to set up permanent civilian settlements in occupied territory. That is the clear message of the relevant portion of the Fourth Geneva Convention cited above.

It is name calling to label criticism of the state of Israel or its actions antisemitic when such criticism is merited and would be applied to other countries committing the same acts. I am a dual citizen of the US and Australia. If either country were to declare itself a Christian country, finance clergy except for chaplains in the armed forces, have a public school system segregated by religion and not even allow civil marriage I would find it completely objectionable. I would no longer consider such a country a democracy. Unfortunately the wall between state and religion has been breached in both US and Australia to a small degree, However, the wall is eroded to such an extent in Israel that I think it dishonest to call Israel a democracy. It can be a Jewish state or a democratic state. It cannot be both.

#To David f

You have failed to produce any definitive legal judgement to substantiate your claim that Israeli settlements are illegal in the West Bank.

Whilst some argue the Fourth Geneva Covention renders such settlements illegal - there are arguments to the contrary based on the fact that the West Bank is not the sovereign territory of Jordan - that it is no man's land in which no High Contracting Party to the Convention has sovereignty.

Among those views are:

Professor Julius Stone,:

"That because of the ex iniuria principle [unjust acts cannot create law], Jordan never had nor now has any legal title in the West Bank, nor does any other state even claim such title. Article 49 seems thus simply not applicable. Even if it were, it may be added that the facts of recent voluntary settlements seem not to be caught by the intent of Article 49 which is rather directed at the forced transfer of the belligerent's inhabitants to the occupied territory, or the displacement of the local inhabitants, for other than security reasons.

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht:

"Thus Jordan's occupation of the Old City-and indeed of the whole of the area west of the Jordan river-entirely lacked legal justification; and being defective in this way could not form any basis for Jordan validly to fill the sovereignty vacuum in the Old City [and whole of the area west of the Jordan River]."

Professor Eugene Rostow:

"The opposition to Jewish settlements in the West Bank also relied on a legal argument - that such settlements violated the Fourth Geneva Convention forbidding the occupying power from transferring its own citizens into the occupied territories. How that Convention could apply to Jews who already had a legal right, protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, to live in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was never explained."

Dear David Singer:

You wrote: "Whilst some argue the Fourth Geneva Covention renders such settlements illegal - there are arguments to the contrary based on the fact that the West Bank is not the sovereign territory of Jordan - that it is no man's land in which no High Contracting Party to the Convention has sovereignty."

If the arguments for the legality of the settlements are based on the fact that the West Bank was not the sovereign territory of Jordan but a no man's land that is not a valid argument. Of course the West Bank is not the sovereign territory of Jordan. I didn't contend that it was. The Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't make exceptions. It is occupied territory, and settlements are illegal whether the territory is the sovereign territory of another country or not. Previously the territories were occupied by the Jordanian state, but Jordan did not violate international law by setting up civilian settlements. Israel did.

#To david f

It is quite clear that you don't agree with the legal opinions expressed by Stone, Lauterpacht and Rostow. That is your prerogative.

It is equally clear that you have so far failed to produce any binding court judgement declaring the settlements illegal in international law as claimed by you.

I know of no such judgements.

Do you?

Dear David,

I don't agree with the judgment of those who argued for the legality of the settlements because their arguments are based on an irrelevant matter, the fact that the West Bank was not Jordanian territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention does not accept civilian settlements in occupied territory and does not make an exception for that occupied territory which is not determined to be part of a state.

The fact that the matter has not been adjudicated is not relevant either. Whether a matter is adjudicated or not is often a political rather than a judicial matter. The US with its veto blocked a condemnation of the illegality of the settlements.

As an American I was bothered by the illegality of the Vietnamese War. There were five attempts to bring the matter to a US court. One woman whose son was conscripted brought suit to challenge her son's conscription since the war was illegal. The army released her son, and her suit was thrown out on the basis that she was no longer an interested party. That is an example of the tricks a nation can use to keep violations from adjudication. That did not make the war legal but marely prevented its legality from being challenged.

I don't know what legal maneuvers Israel has gone through to keep the matter from being adjudicated. However, if Israel is so sure that the settlements are legal they can allow a challenge to an international court. That should end all questions of legality. As far as I can see the clear language of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not allow the settlements, and the fact that matter has not been adjudicated does not make the settlements legal.

I feel you are not interested in justice but will use the law to support your case. That is something most lawyers will do for a client. Israel is your client, and you will use the law as an instrument to favour your client whether or not justice is served. I get that from your arguments. Winning an argument does not make Israel right.