By Ted Belman
Last I heard, it was to be discussed in the Ministerial Committee in September. Many of those involved thought it would be approved but I am not so sure.
Meanwhile the European Journal of International Affairs just published a critique (not favourable, of course) of the Levy Report under the title “Justice Levy’s Legal Tinsel” by Iain Scobie.
-
The reasoning of the Report, such as there is, is a travesty of legal argumentation. It is selective in the issues it chooses to address, and perverse in its interpretation of international law. The arguments employed with regard to the status of the West Bank and legality of the Israeli settlements there are not novel. Indeed, they are well-worn, tired, and have been thoroughly discredited in the past. They contradict established legal opinion, both international and Israeli.
To understand the arguments put forward is no easy task, even for a lawyer. Fortunately a number of advocates for Israel, lawyers included, have rebutted the same. They include Eugene Kontorovich, Eli Hertz and Elliot Green. More are expected.
@ yamit82:
Of course. (That’s my point.)
And not just early statements.
ALL his statements in re settlements characterize them as “illegitimate.”
What’s more, all of MRS CLINTON’s statements in that regard ALSO characterize them as “illegitimate.”
And none of his OR Miz’ Hillary’s (or those of anybody else among the High-&-Mighty Obami) — early statements OR recent ones — have ever ONCE labeled them “illegal.”
It’s always “illegitimate,” never “illegal.” NO EXCEPTIONS.
Whoa, can you sling it.
And once again, you’re off-point as well. (Leave it to you to change the subject whenever the heat starts to rise.)
I’ve never been ‘evasive’ about that stuff.
Truth is, notwithstanding what soi-disant “Christians” have let themselves be taught (by those with no Jewish background), Jesus never did claim he was ‘God’
— not as recorded in the Gospels. (Nor is it LOGICAL that he would have made such an assertion to fellow JEWS, of all people.)
And he DID say plenty of things which indicate quite the contrary BOTH as to his own belief AND as to his intentions for his disciples.
This is such horseshit. (As is typical of you in this matter, Yamit.)
But if it’s true that I ‘ignored’ remarks of his indicating such a claim to ‘divinity’ on his part, then you should have no trouble dredging them up to support your allegation here. Put up or shut up.
WARNING, however:
If you try to SNOW me under with pages & pages of quoted verbiage (as you frequently have done), instead of providing me with your own thoughtfully argued discussions relating to specific passages — then I will indeed cut you loose (count on it). Not as a matter of ‘evasion’ — but simply because I’ll be damned if I’ll let you monopolize my limited onscreen time with those imbecilic fishing expeditions that you incline toward.
@ yamit82:
That’s Yamit’s backhanded way of admitting (quite in spite of himself) to his enthrallment to the “green-eyed monster.”
Yamit has NO IDEA what I “love to” do.
All you really have, boychik, are half-assed assumptions: based on projections of your own mishegasse onto ME.
The truth is that without that “superior insight,” YOU have no way of KNOWING just what it is that I do (or don’t) “love to” do.
A pity too, that — since that “superior insight” is just as much available to you (or anybody else) as it is to me. It’s only your bloated ego that keeps it at bay.
Nope — I’ve never used the word ‘MYSTIC’ in my own behalf. (I know better than to indulge myself in terminology whose popular usage has already shown signs of having lost so much of its meaning as to render it subject to mischief.)
A lot of other people have used the word ‘MYSTIC’ about me; but not I myself. Not ever.
YOU like to use that word about me (constantly, it seems). But then, most people are terribly uncomfortable without a box of one kind or another to put everybody into. And it’s long been obvious enough that the prospect of being unable to pigeonhole me scares the hissing pee-pee out of you, Shmendrick.
If I were paid by the word, I’d plagiarize your posts & claim them for my own. (I could retire independently wealthy.)
As for understanding where I’m coming from, there’s a price tag on that: your vanity would have to take a hike. Fat chance, that.
Where Mr Obama is concerned, a cigar is NEVER “just a plain old cigar.”
You have absolutely no clue as to what you’re dealing with here.
Actually I see Obama as a brilliant con-artist who is confident of his ability to use language to create & control the direction of discourse.
And judging from the way he’s so obviously snookered the two of you, I’d have to say he’s onto something there. (God help us.)
Sometimes a cop needs to be able to think like a criminal in order to catch him. Doesn’t necessarily make the cop a criminal.
Do I see thru the guy? — You bet your sweet arse I do.
I see thru you also. (But that’s much easier.)
Sheer projection, and nothing but.
@ yamit82:
If there is no difference, then why doesn’t he use the terms interchangeably? (Aren’t you even the least little bit curious, if not downright suspicious?)
Why does he (and EVERYBODY in his administration, w/o exception, including SecState Clinton, UN Amb. Susan E. Rice, et al.) studiously & systematically AVOID ever using the word “illegal,” and invaryingly ALWAYS apply the word “illegitimate,” in re the settlements?
Can you honestly not see what they’re trying to do?
This is the centerpiece of a concerted pattern to mold & alter American popular opinion concerning the matter.
And if you can’t see a pattern here, then you’re every bit as stupid as this administration obviously thinks you are.
I offered you a link, above. Did you follow it & read what the piece said?
@ dweller:
I think you will find early quotes saying settlements were illegitimate
dweller used the same argument and evasive technique when he claimed Jesus never said he was god.
When I quoted him verses he ignored them without reference in reply.
@ dweller:
Saying illegitimate as opposed to illegal is to make a distinction without a difference.
What don’t you understand about this statement?
Most of dwellers points on any subject boil down to such distinctions without a difference. He loves to type and to project to others that he has some superior insight and knowledge. Must be due to the fact that this delusional character thinks he is a ‘MYSTIC’ a type of guru with transcendental insight. If he were paid by the word I could understand where he is coming from. He refuses to see a cigar as just a plain old cigar.
Boy do I agree with this relevant statement.
So true and so relevant
@ yamit82:
So? Irrelevant.
I never said (or suggested) that BHO was a good lawyer.
Only that he knows how to THINK like a lawyer.
True, but again irrelevant & entirely off-point. Why bring that up here?
The point was simply that BHO has never — not one single solitary time EVER — called the over-green-line Jewish communities “illegal.”
(If you can find an instance, I’d love to see it.)
I don’t think he DARES to use the term in relation to them.
@ dweller:
Narvey is a Lawyer who earned his degrees on his own merit and not with the aid of Affirmative action; just like the liberals topical pets ,the Arabs and Muslims.
Off script and Teleprompter he is even more incoherent than Bush. This Guy (obama), based on testimony of others never attended a class or lecture but was advanced.. Some say by the CIA (Pastor Manning) and some say by Saudi Money obtained with the assistance of Rashid Khalidi:
Funny that the Jews spearheaded the concept of Affirmative Action? Guess they feel they have a lot invested in their Black President of Muslim decent. Black Liberationists and Islam seem to make for nut jobs..A toxic mix especially when you throw in leftist anti-imperialism and anti- colonialism.
@ yamit82:
Yes, I thought you would when I read his post.
Hence, the last line of my REPLY to him [post #11].
@ Bill Narvey:
For once Narvey I agree with you 1000%, well at least 100%.
@ CuriousAmerican:
What part of Article 51 do you not understand?
(That wasn’t “Area 51.”)
@ Bill Narvey:
Then why does he ALWAYS (without exception) use the one and NEVER (even once) the other over this matter?
With all due respect, I submit that you miss the forest for the trees.
This isn’t about semantics.
The guy is a lawyer, and he knows that in law (and diplomacy), the words always count.
In law, a matter means what its WORDS say it means — nothing more & nothing less. (Recall, e.g., the squabbles over the wording of UNSC Res. 242.)
A legal practitioner knows that if he ignores this fact about precise phraseology, the words can always come back to bite him in tender places he’d just as soon keep safe from harm. It’s not some idle, nit-picky concern.
Switch to decaf, Bill, you seem to be losing sleep these days
— and it’s making you cranky.
Assuming it even IS, in fact, Bill Narvey who wrote comment #9.
An attack on Iran would be morally right, though not necessarily legal.
Dweller, you seem ripe for me to sell you swamp land in Florida as beach front property. Yes, Obama has been careful to say all Israeli settlement beyond the green line, which necessarily includes Jerusalem, is illegitimate. Saying illegitimate as opposed to illegal is to make a distinction without a difference.
You must see Obama as some kind of brilliant wordsmith who has the skill to use specific language to draw subtle nuanced distinctions that are nonetheless real. You also implicitly put yourself in Obama’s league in being able to fathom those distinctions.
Both you and Obama are full of yourselves and as much full of shit in that regard. In other words, I draw no distinction between Obama the pitcher and you the catcher of such subtle nuanced bull shit distinctions.
Isn’t there a typo in the name spelling?? Shoudn’t it be “Scabbie”??
@ CuriousAmerican:
Doesn’t help, I’m afraid.
There is more than one Israel.
What one GOI might regard as ‘right’
— might well differ from what struck another one as ‘right.’
You need to be more explicit.
What is right for Israel to do is not always what is legal for Israel to do.
@ Bill Narvey:
Can you find me an explicit example of this stated position?
I’ve never been able to find such an instance from him in re this matter. And I’ve looked.
From what I’ve seen, he’s always been extraodinarily careful to NEVER use the word “illegal” in this regard.
He & his Administration proxies (Mrs Clinton, et al.) always use the expression “illegitimate.”
If you think that’s sheer happenstance — then could I interest you in some choice Arizona beachfront property that I’ll sell you for cheap?
In fact, if you’ll spare me the wait for your check to clear, and instead pay me in cash (silver would be better), I’ll even throw in a SF bridge for free (solid gold! got it for a song) — purely because I’m such a fine fellow.
Recall, for example, how USA ambassador to the UN, Susan E. Rice, was constrained to cast a veto — the solitary “no” vote — against the 18 February 2011 Security Council Resolution offered by the Lebanese representative, the text declaring that
“Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including east Jerusalem, are ILLEGAL and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” [emphasis mine — dw]
To have failed to reject an avowal of such evident, plain & patent perversity in law would have meant opening a can of worms which the Obami know only too well they could not close.
At the same time, it is widely understood & readily acknowledged that the phraseology of the measure — as insisted upon by the Palestinian-Arab UN Observer, Riyad Mansour — was a source of great frustration to the Administration, which (as they freely stated at the time) would have been entirely content to endorse, in the alternative, an “illegitimacy” resolution: and let its unanimous passage carry the social & moral weight (without the jurisprudential status) of an illegality statement.
The soi-disant “Palestinians,” their legal & diplomatic sophistication lagging behind that of the American administration, simply jumped the gun, and wouldn’t be mollified by the strategic subtleties of Obama & Co.
613 of ’em, eh?
No doubt, 248 were positive & 365 negative?
“Sha — sha shtil, the neighbors!”
You can take the yiddele out of the shtetl, but, well. . . . (surely you know).
Plus ça change. . . .
@ CuriousAmerican:
Define (yes, okay: or characterize)
— “what is right”
as you use the term.
Is there available an English-language translation of the full-text of the Levy Report? If so, I would like to read it. If not, what did Iain Scobie use for his critique? Perhaps Scobie should pause from his unrelenting campaign against the Jewish State to consider that it is rather naive to be so categorical about what is internationally “legal” and “illegal.” For a variety of reasons, international law is akin to an ongoing discussion of rights in which every country and NGO has its lawyers and every law professor an opinion. For example, you can look at my own essay on “Jewish Aboriginal Rights to Israel” which appears (inter alia) as an October 2011 posting at http://www.allenzhertz.com The crux there is that there is moral, political and legal weight to the circumstance that the Jewish People kept demographic and cultural ties to its aboriginal homeland for 2,600 years after the 6th-century BCE ethnogenesis of the Jewish People in “Eretz Israel.” It is not only Professor Scobie who needs to be reminded that some Jews stubbornly lived in “Eretz Israel” in each and every year since the 6th century BCE. And, it is not only Professor Scobie who needs to understand how this point is intimately connected to the post-WW1 treaties recognizing the “historical connection of the Jewish People to Palestine” and creating “a national home for the Jewish People” between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Assuming the Levy report conclusions are well founded, the only thing that will keep the GOI from adopting same and incorporating those conclusions into their own positions, is if Obama exerts unconscionable pressure on Israel to reject the Levy report and conclusions.
On the issue of merit and validity of the Levy report, legal opinions from the likes of Iain Scobie, do not come close to measuring up.
Obama’s stated position that all settlement beyond the green line is illegal, is nothing but an opinion without a scintilla of fact, legal argument, logic and reason to back it up.
The 613 asshole Rabbis who are a disgrace to the name Rabbi and the Jewish community that they claim to represent, who wrote a letter condemning the Levy report for reasons having nothing to do with the report and everything to do with sucking up to the radical Obama led Democratic left wing and brown nosing Obama in particular, provided nothing but their worthless biased opinion. That bias incidentally displays a lack of empathy, sympathy and support for Israel.
If the GOI rejects the Levy Report and conclusions they will be rejecting what is right and legal for what is wrong and illegal, which wrong and illegal the aforementioned who rejected the Levy report have chosen.
One may have to divorce what is legal from what is right.
This will hurt both sides though.