#9 (thomasmaes)
First of all, let me thank you for your obviously very well thought out and logical post. A breath of fresh air on this forum. :)
It is correct that the Green Line is not a recognized international boundary.
==============================
Thank you. That's what I keep saying continuously on this forum, but all too many here refuse to internalize this fact.
On the other hand, Israel is a recognized sovereign state and the Palestinian Authority is a recognized sovereign entity (both entities, by the way, also recognize each other as such), both existing on the territory of pre-1948 mandatory Palestine.
=============================================
Correct again. I never denied that part of the territory is Palestinian and part is Israeli. I just keep saying that the border between them (i.e., what is Palestinian and what is Israeli) has never been determined. For example, saying everything east of the GL is Palestinian is pure nonsense.
It is therefore from a legal point of view ludicrous to presume, like a1 and the Israeli government do, that the non-existence of a recognized international boundary between the two would allow one of both entities (Israel) to impose its will over the entire mandatory territory by force (this argument would also, for instance, make it legal for one of both Koreas to forcibly overrun the other).
===================================
Correct again. Except that Israel is currently not "imposing its will" over the entire former BMP territory. It de facto controls all the territory today (by default - all efforts to de-occupy it have failed, but that's another story), but it does not 'occupy' the people therein - at least not in the PA areas.
In addition, even though any party may theoretically claim whatever it wishes (even if they don't actually do so, see below), the Green Line is a UN-mandated armistice line between warring factions marking the maximum extent of recognition of Israeli sovereignty by the international community AND marking the principal starting point for any future negotiations governing the establishment of an international boundary between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
===================================
Can't argue with that. :) Very true.
Furthermore, Israel itself does not consider the West Bank, apart from East Jerusalem, to be part of its sovereign territory: that is the last thing it would wish to do as it would then also have to recognize the local Palestinian population as Israeli citizens.
=======================================
Very true as well.
Therefore there is really no disagreement: the West Bank is territory over which the sovereignty is disputed (or more accurately, over which there are no sovereignty claims from recognized sovereign states (as opposed to entities) as neither Israel nor Jordan claim it), under military occupation by Israel.
==========================
Only parts of the Palestinian population are under military occupation - basically those not under PA rule. And it is not "occupied territory" as such, since it doesn't fit the parameters outlined in the official definition of the term (see the relevant 1907 treaty).
Therefore, Israel has to respect the international conventions regarding military occupations, including, in this case, freedom of movement for non-local citizens.
==========================================
Subject to security considerations, OK. But the "non-locals" (tourists and citizens of other countries) can move freely within the WB - even under the new rules (which I personally think are stupid and unnecessary). But, according to the way I understand these rules, if they choose to "move freely" in the WB, then they can't "move freely" in Israel. Israel has every right to refuse entry to anyone in its sovereign territory - just like any other country in the world.
The reason embassies are not located in West Jerusalem is that according to UNSC Res. 478 the international community recognizes no sovereignty of any country including Israel over any part of Jerusalem.
===================================
Totally disagree as this just doesn't fit the facts.
UNSCR 478 was adopted by the UN in 1980. Why weren't almost all embassies in Jerusalem before 1980? The only ones which were there, were those of some Latin American countries and the Netherlands.
This makes the argument stronger in the sense that it implies Israel has no right to bar entry to West Jerusalem either.
========================================
Even if what you say is true, very real security considerations make this impossible. And you are just stressing once again that the GL is not recognized by anyone as an international boundary - something which I keep hammering away at in all my posts.
The "limited negotiable areas" refer to possible setting of a future international boundary between Israel and independent Palestine (to be created) away from the Green Line as negotiated between both parties, generally understood by the international community to be limited to fair and equal land swaps, mainly in order to allow a number of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank to fall on the Israeli side of the eventual border and in a few cases in order not to disrupt Israeli communications (eg Latrun area).
====================================
I agree with the above, except for your use of the term "illegal", since it is "disputed" territory, not "occupied" territory. Just to be clear as to where I stand, I disagree with most of Israel's WB "settlement" policy (but not all of it) - not because it is "illegal" (which it isn't) but because IMHO it isn't in Israel's best interest.
