This is why Wyden will be a Senator until he retires. It's a tough sell to portray him as "out of touch".

If you know the answer, why do you keep asking it?

I suggest YOU read it, Mr. Amy. Here is article 47 in full:

Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

In short, Article 47 says, that if you annex territory, you can't alter the fundamental "benefits" of the people who are living there; they are still covered under the convention.

It does not say you can't annex the territory.

Now please, go away and quit embarrassing yourself.

I "Wyden supports this" then why do you keep asking him?

Annexation is "totally unallowable"? Article 47 not only allows it, it presumes it, only placing some safeguards on the practice.

And no, maintenance of property rights are not included in those safeguards. Again, communists would have never signed a document which said what you think it says. They did not cotton too much to the idea of ownership at all, much less ownership in perpetuity.

Neither did we, actually. During our occupation of Japan, General MacArthur rather famously took 5.8 million acres of land (about 38% of all of Japan's farmlands) through forcible "purchase" from absentee landlords, and redistributed it to the peasant farmers who actually worked it. Again, not illegal, no matter how much some of the land's previous owners were unhappy with that action.

So again, let me be blunt, Mr. Amy. You continue to embarrass yourself with your complete ignorance of history, law, and international relations. I'm sure you mean well, but these kinds of conflicts are only solved through politics and negotiations, not in courtrooms - especially not in unaccountable politicized pseudo-"courts" which have no legal or moral standing to address all sorts of thorny issues.

It doesn't "somehow presume" it. It explicitly states that people are to be protected when it legally happens. This is quite the opposite of what you originally stated, which is that it says that it is illegal.

As an analogy, your reading of a law that said "police shall not abuse suspects when they confiscate illegal drugs and weapons from them" would be "it is illegal for police to confiscate drugs and weapons from suspects". Sorry. Doesn't work that way.

In terms of the UN Resolutions 242 and 338, there was some significant word-smithing that was used (Israel was to withdraw from territories, not "all the territories", etc). But I won't bother you with the subtleties of it - given that you clearly interpret things to have the exact opposite meanings to what they actually say when it suits you.

Finally, I went ahead and read that little screed, about "Ron Wyden's" The Israel Project. Why is it "his project"? Because he, along with 14 other Senators, and another 20+ Congressmen, is on the board of "advisers", not the board of directors. Clearly it's his sole brainchild - through some bizarre thinking.

I will, however, bring this up to Senator Wyden the next time I see him. He may not be aware of how that group has strayed into a counterproductive pro-settlement position. And I would hope he might nudge them, with a little "advising".

Only in your own world Mr. Amy, would an anonymously written leaked internal memo be the same thing as a fully vetted legal opinion held by an authorized governing body (speaking for all sovereign nations within that state) that claims jurisdiction over such a dispute.

Further, "the EU says that" is an entirely unsupported statement in the article you quote, and in fact - is false. Because if it were true that EU government went through all the steps necessary to officially take such a stand, speaking on behalf of all sovereign states that make up the EU, it would be big news indeed, reported internationally, not just as a single phrase in an otherwise unremarkable article. (Just as if the EU took such a formal international position declaring that Tibet is not actually a part of China, which it has not - despite the fact that Tibet was never a threat to China, much less started a war to try to wipe them off the map as the Arabs tried to do with Israel.)

Again, Mr. Amy, if you search long and hard enough, I'm sure you can find all sorts of half-said or poorly made characterizations of some anonymous person's opinion to support your foregone conclusions on this topic, but at this point you have really become entirely reminiscent of creationists and their similar tactics when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their position - picking and choosing out of context quotes, pasted together by stubborn belief, and quite frankly, not a small dollop of juvenile anger unbecoming of an adult.

The worst part about this is that I believe, along with President Obama, that Israel's current course is not good for their long term interests. But such opinions as you hold are only going to keep giving Israel's conservatives an external enemy to rally against, prolonging a just resolution of this issue. So as Jon Stewart always does when some liberal is caught making an ass of themselves, let me hold up a proverbial sign which states: "You're Not Helping".

I think we're done here as well. After a time, you have to stop arguing with creationists. Facts and logic mean little to them. They know they're right, therefore they are.