The ever-shrinking Kerry peace process

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://972mag.com/the-ever-shrinking-kerry-peace-process/86981/

The simple, undeniable fact is that Israel has been refusing to end the occupation for almost half a century. It has not lifted martial law nor has it withdrawn from the territory.

The object of the process needs to be making Israel reach this decision. Everybody knows that.

With this in mind, I am not sure that we have taken a single step forward since the launching of the Kerry process. Every crossroads has ended up being about postponing the decision: first by allowing Netanyahu to avoid the terms of reference from previous rounds of talks, then by keeping only vague references to territorial issues, and now by providing him with a way to continue negotiating without committing.

Just like Israel “accepted” the Clinton parameters and the Road Map (while submitting reservations), it can “accept” the Kerry plan and not come any closer to its moment of truth. Clearly, this is Netanyahu’s goal.

[Mosby]

1. The occupation is legal

this is a lie:

In fact, the entire dynamic around the occupation is unequal for the simple reason that it takes an Israeli decision, not a Palestinian one, to end the occupation.

The truth is that both sides need to resolve security council resolutions 338 and 242.

[Scootaloo]

2. So your argument is that the power dynamic is one of equality?

I would love to hear your explanation about how Palestine and Israel are at parity, Mosby. it should be exceedingly... interesting.

[Jefferson23]

3. The occupation is legal? Says who? Please clarify. n/t

[Mosby]

4. the laws of belligerent occupation

Pending resolution of unscr 242 israel has the right to assert administrative and military control over the OTs.

[Jefferson23]

5. I think you are taking much liberty with referring to the occupation as legal, Mosby.

Israel has not lived up to their obligations.

snip* The meaning of the phrase “ les lois en vigueur
lhttp://www.hpcrresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/OccasionalPaper1.pdf

2005
snip* Occupation is temporary. It may be neither permanent nor indefinite.These principles
we will show, interrelate: the substantive constraints on the managerial discretion of the
occupant elucidated in principles ( a) and ( b) generate the conclusion in ( c) cannot but
violate principles ( a) and ( b), thereby, corrupting the normative regime of occupation
in the sense that an occupation that cannot be regarded as temporary defies both the
principle of trust and of self determination. The violation of any one of these principles,
therefore, unlike the violation of a specific norm that reflects them, renders an occupation
illegal, per se. This is the nature of the Israeli occupation of the OPT.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil

snip* Reaffirming the illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the
threat or use of force.
2004 Advisory Ruling, ICJ.

[Mosby]

6. fair enough but my statement about the legality of the occupation

isn't in dispute beyond the confines of leftist websites and blogs like DU.

The settlements are a different story of course.

Neither side has lived up to it's obligations under oslo 1/2.

[Jefferson23]

7. Beyond the confines of leftist websites and blogs? I posted for you

excerpts of legal opinions...not from a blog...but whatever.

[Mosby]

8. I will read through the pdf

But I don't think it's saying what you think it's saying.

The essay appears to be about how much can the occupying power change/adjust local laws and customs.

[Jefferson23]

9. In totality, it is an illegal occupation...the crux of it rests in the advisory opinion of

the ICJ, and why I highlighted that one important qualifier.

The essay is an opinion, drawing a logical conclusion based on the ongoing occupation,
you can remove the first two if you like, and still have to deal with the impact of the ICJ statement.

You have yet to post any source.

*Belligerent occupation is governed by The Hague Regulations of 1907, as well as by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the customary laws of belligerent occupation. Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), paragraph 3 continued: “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in a Time of War of 12 August 1949;...” Again, the Security Council vote was 14 to 0, becoming obligatory international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there. The Palestinian People living in this Palestinian Land are “protected persons” within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of their rights are sacred under international law.