Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (6003)	10/18/2001 1:37:20 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Strange legal interpretation Only for you, given your propensity to assert something that hasn't been stated. There are two basic interpretations of the status of the West Bank. The first is that is occupied territory, captured legitimately from Jordan as an act of self-defense in 1967. Jordan, having renounced its claim, no longer has any legal say in its disposition. Thus, Israel had to decide whether to exert its right to annex this captured territory, or interpret its status according to the original British Mandate. Both have advantages and disadvantages. If they annexed it outright, citing it's former status as part of Jordan, they could lay legal claim to it as part of Israel, and deny citizenship to any Palestinian unwilling to take an oath of loyalty to Israel (as Israeli Arabs have). There's nothing that would force them to grant citizenship to the West Bank Palestinians because they were effectively Jordanians under this interpretation, and have every right to cross the river back to their own country. And obviously the condemnation they would receive internationally would be the disadvantage, as well as potential resumption of hostilities with Jordan as they find themselves absorbing millions of refugees. The Second choice seems to be the one they had opted for. They are treating the West Bank as an unassigned/unformed part of the British Mandate, which CLEARLY STIPULATES that Jews have the right to settle there. Thus, we saw Israelis take advantage of that right to settle under the terms of the British Mandate. Now, we're seeing Israel gradually move toward limited autonomy and self-government for the Palestinians as a result of Oslo, but still falling short of permitting statehood. Any declaration of statehood by the PA would be tantamount to an act of rebellion, causing Palestinians to forfeit their protections under the Geneva Convention as occupied peoples. Those who participate in the rebellion now become combatants and subject to punitive measures. The West Bank is STILL occupied territory, and Israel has EVERY RIGHT under international law to preserve its security as well as preventing that territory from being occupied by a hostile political/military entity. And the sooner the Palestinians acknowledge that fact, the faster they can engage in reasonable negotiations which ultimately lead to some form of statehood for them. The question will be then, will Arafat or some other Palestinian government then attempt to use the West Bank as a base of operations for "reuniting" Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria, and Israel. Hawk