The Real Tragedy in Israel
By Ted Belman
PA ambassador: Our weapon is int’l law caught my attention because the Ambassidor proceeds on the basis that the Geneva Convention applies to Judea and Samaria and therefore, the occupation is illegal. Its worth reading what he has to say. But even if it does apply, the settlements are legal.
It reminded me of my destruction of his arguments in The Real Tragedy in Israel which I wrote two years ago.
Unfortunately, a Growing Majority of Americans Oppose Israel Building Settlements
A narrative has emerged that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank are a “tragedy.” The fatal flaw lies in the original sin of supposedly lawless occupation of land, in contravention of the Geneva Convention. It makes a strong emotional pitch to a sense of justice, a major influence on the thinking of many American Jews. But the narrative is built on a flawed foundation.
For example, Gershom Gorenberg in his Op-Ed in the New York Times, “Israel’s Tragedy Foretold,” on March 10, 2006, opines that Israelis and their leaders have finally seen the light, namely that Israel should abandon the settlements.
In so concluding, Mr. Gorenberg puts his faith in an opinion by Legal Counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, one Theodor Merion who wrote in 1967
-
“My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
Mr Gorenberg laments that Israel, in disregard of this advice, started to build settlements with the “sadly mistaken confidence that the legal, ethical and diplomatic difficulties of settlement could somehow be avoided.” The tragedy, according to Mr. Gorenberg, is that Israel now has to untangle the mess at great human and financial cost.
Mr. Meron’s conclusion has been thoroughly discredited by legal scholars over the years and Mr. Gorenberg’s thesis which rests upon it must suffer the same fate.
Professor Talia Einhorn, Adjunct Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University, in The Status of Palestine/Land of Israel and Its Settlement Under Public International Law published by NATIV Online in 1993, advises
-
In 1967, following the Six Day War, the territories of Yesha, which had been originally designated for the Jewish national home according to the Mandate document, returned to Israeli rule. Leading international law scholars opined that Israel was in lawful control of Yesha, that no other state could show better title than Israel to Yesha’s territory, and that this territory was not “occupied” in the sense of the Geneva Convention, since those rules are designed to assure the reversion of the former legitimate sovereign which, in this case, does not exist. Israel was therefore entitled to declare that it has exercised its sovereign powers over Yesha.
In practice, however, for political and other reasons, Israel exercised its sovereign powers only with respect to East Jerusalem. Regarding the rest of Yesha, Israel’s official position was that Israel was entitled to annex them, and that, since they had not been taken from a legitimate sovereign, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations 1899/1907 were inapplicable there. Nonetheless, Israel chose voluntarily to observe and abide by the humanitarian provisions included therein.” [emphasis added]
One of the “leading international scholars” she refers to was the late Eugene W. Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969. The New Republic, on April 23, 1990, published his article entitled, Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity, in which he argued
-
“…The Palestine Mandate, recognizing “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country,” is dedicated to “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, …”
”…The State Department has never denied that under the Mandate “the Jewish people” have the right to settle in the area. Instead, it said that Jewish settlements in the West Bank violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949…..[which] provides that the occupying power “shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
”…But the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers. They have not been “deported” or “transferred” by the government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent. Furthermore, the Convention applies only to acts by one signatory “carried out on the territory of another.” The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate…
”…The controversy about Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not, therefore, about legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights.
In 1991, The New Republic published another article by Dean Rostow, entitled , Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies in which he again argued,
- It is common even for American journalists to write that Security Council Resolution 242 is “deliberately ambiguous,” as though the parties are equally free to rely on their own reading of its key provisions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which, as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969, I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” is achieved. [..]
Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.
Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which provided…. “no provision” of the Armistice Agreements “Shall in any way prejudice the right, claims, and positions” of the parties “in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem.” In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate.
… As a result, more than 90 percent of the territories Israel occupied in 1967 are now under Arab sovereignty.
Now that Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, this percentage has increased.
Thus the “occupation” was and is legal, having been authorized by the Security Council and the settlements are legal pursuant to the trust created by the British Mandate. In accordance with Israel’s rights, The Oslo Accords did not restrict further settlement. The Mitchell Report which recommended a freeze on settlement activity was incorporated into the Roadmap which Israel accepted. The Palestinian Authority is in fundamental breach of its obligations under the Roadmap. Therefore, Israel is not bound to maintain the freeze.
The fact remains that Israel has every right, according to international law, to defend its citizens, to remain in occupation, to build settlements and to refuse to acknowledge a “right of return”.
The tragedy is that the Arabs refused to accept the existence of the State of Israel and have refused to negotiate peace based on the intent of Resolution 242. Anwar Sadat broke the mold in 1979 and was assassinated for his pains.
The tragedy is that the Arabs have refused to absorb the Arab refugees as Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, preferring instead to doom them to live in squalor as a means of putting pressure on Israel. The late King Hussein of Jordan was the only exception. He too recognized the State of Israel.
The tragedy is that the PA created and empowered by the Oslo Accords choose to make war rather than peace thereby sacrificing the well being of the people it represented.
And the tragedy is that the world aided and abetted it in this endeavor never once demanding that it honor its obligations or else.
Addendum: Israel’s Legal Rights to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (This is a compilation of dozens of legal articles on the subject.)
It was Theodor Merion that Christiane Amanpour interviewed in her piece “God’s Warriors”.
You will recall that she also included an interview with an Israeli who had engaged in terrorist acts against Arabs about 20 or more years ago and whose acts of terrorism were childplay compared to the savagery of Muslim terrorism since Muslims began terrorizing Jews.
Amanpour practices advocacy journalism and it is clear from the hatchet job she did on Israel in her “God’s Warriors” series, she is pro-Palestinian. As I recall, Amanpour could not find many if any Christians who could be seen as God’s Warriors.
Of the three, Jews, Christians and Muslims, only the Muslims have within their ranks people who would coniserer themselves “God’s Warriors”, but to those non-Muslim people these warriors commit their terrorism, these Muslims are not “God’s Warriors” at all, but the lethal scum of whatever anti-God there might be, by the name Satan, Devil or whatever.
Regardless of his opinion, I wonder how Theodor Meron allowed himself to be used by Amanpour and CNN in their demonizing Jews and Israel, if only by making a completely dishonest equivilence between the genocidal Jew hating Arabs and the Jews and Israelis who have defending themselves in that region from that Arab bloodthirsty Jew hatred for over a century.
How dare Amanpour and CNN? How dare Theodor Meron?
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 30, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Here is a little something From a Canadian he adds some interesting concepts to the question of Jewish Rights to the Land of Israel.
Posted from Israel Jewish News: http://israeljewishnews.blogspot.com/
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/04/23/1004598/aboriginal-rights-to-israel
Aboriginal Rights To Israel
By Allen Z. Hertz
For over sixty years, there has been a bitter dispute over the unwillingness of most Muslims and Arabs to accept the legitimacy and permanence of Israel as an independent Jewish State in the Middle East. In this connection, Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have denied that the Jews are a People within the context of the modern political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples. However, there is an enormous body of archaeological and historical evidence demonstrating that the Jewish People — like the Greek People or the Han Chinese People — is among the oldest of the world’s Peoples.
Thus, it is well known that the Jewish People has more than 3,500 years of continuous history, with a subjective-objective national identity that, in each century, has kept a link to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. For example, the Jewish Bible, the Christian Gospels and the Koran all specifically testify to the connection between the Jewish People and its historic homeland.
Like other Peoples, the Jewish People has a right to self-determination. Though the self-determination of the Arab People is expressed via twenty-one Arab countries, Israel is the sole expression of the self-determination of the Jewish People, which of all extant Peoples, has the strongest claim to be considered aboriginal to the territory west of the Jordan River.
Thus, the Jewish People is aboriginal to Israel in the same way that, in Canada, certain First Nations are deemed aboriginal to their ancestral lands. And, it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where aboriginals maintain their historical connection with the land, aboriginal title can survive both sovereignty changes and influx of new populations resulting from foreign conquest.
In this regard, it is essential to recognize that the Middle East has always had a significant Jewish population, including some Jews who, in each century, continued to live west of the Jordan River. Today, many of the sons and daughters of these Middle Eastern Jews are citizens of Israel, where they have been joined by Jews from many other countries. Though some Western thinkers are now uncomfortable with the idea of a nation-State as the homeland of a particular People, that is no reason to target Israel, because the overwhelming majority of modern States are the homeland of a particular People, e.g., Japan, Italy, or the twenty-one countries of the Arab League.
Israel and thirty-odd modern countries are all successor States of the Muslim Ottoman Empire which for four hundred years (1516-1920) was the principal Power in the Near and Middle East. Apart from the ruling Turks, the Ottoman population was composed of several large ethnic groups, including Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and Jews. For centuries, these Jews lived in large numbers in a variety of Ottoman venues — including Constantinople, Salonika, Cairo, Alexandria, Damascus, Aleppo, Mosul, Baghdad, Basra, Tiberias, Hebron, Safed, Jaffa and Jerusalem.
In late October 1914, the Ottoman Empire opted to enter the First World War to fight against the United Kingdom and its Allies. As the fortunes of war began to favour the British Army, the United Kingdom Government addressed the question of what to do with the multi-national Ottoman lands both in the light of current British interests and the nineteenth-century liberal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples. In this regard, the father of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in his 1896 manifesto The Jewish State, had already proclaimed that Jews, though living in many different places around the globe, constitute one People for the purpose of self-determination.
In October 1917, the British Cabinet adopted, as a declared war aim, the creation of an entirely new country called “Palestine” to serve as “a national home for the Jewish People.” This was done to help realize the Jewish People’s self-determination on its ancestral lands; to shore up Jewish support for the Allied war effort in revolutionary Russia and the USA; and to help the British better cover the eastern flank of the Suez Canal, which was then the crucial gateway to British India. The intention to create this Jewish-National-Home Palestine was announced to the world in the November 1917 Balfour Declaration.
As Great Britain worked to defeat the Ottoman Turks, the world also began to learn about the national claims of the Arab People. Here recall the wartime exploits of Lawrence of Arabia and the Hashemite Prince Feisal ibn Hussein, both of whom were present at the 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference. There, a powerful international searchlight was trained on the self-determination of Peoples, including the claims of the Arab People.
However, no one there had ever heard anything about a distinct Palestinian Arab People. Had there then been such a distinct Palestinian Arab People, Prince Feisal, USA President Woodrow Wilson, France’s Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and others would have known about it. This assessment is confirmed by extensive local testimony and petitions collected, in 1919, by the USA King-Crane Commission which told President Wilson that Arabs around the Jordan River specifically rejected any plan to create a new country called Palestine. To the contrary, local Arabs then enthusiastically sought creation of a new, unitary Arab State matching the then Ottoman Province of Syria, which for centuries had included modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.
The 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference was concerned with the task of accommodating the political interests of the victorious Allied and Associated Powers with the claims to self-determination of well-known Peoples which had long histories of national self-affirmation and bitter suffering under foreign oppression. Thus, considered were difficult and entangled issues touching the self-determination of such famous Peoples as the Chinese, the Poles, the Germans, the Finns, the Letts, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Serbs, the Slovenes, the Croats, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Turks, the Kurds, the Armenians, the Arabs and the Jews. In this larger context, just one decision among many was creation of an entirely new country called “Palestine” as “a national home for the Jewish People”.
The international decision to establish “a national home for the Jewish People” was the sole rationale for the 1922 creation of Jewish-National-Home Palestine which, under the aegis of the League of Nations, was administered by the British until May 1948, when Israel declared independence. Decision-makers at the 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference knew that Jewish-National-Home Palestine would initially lack a Jewish majority population. However, the international decision to create Palestine “as a national home for the Jewish People” was made not so much on the basis of local demographics, but in recognition of the Jewish People’s aboriginal title and continuing links to the land around the Jordan River, as well as with regard to broader considerations of demography, history, politics and social justice that were both global and Middle Eastern. Thus, there was a conscious choice to refer — not just to the 85,000 Jews then living locally — but also to the past, present and future of 14 million Jews worldwide, including the one million Jews then living in the Near and Middle East.
Failure to create Jewish-National-Home Palestine would have meant denying the Jewish People a share in the partition of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire, where Jews had lived for centuries, including some west of the Jordan River. Failure to create Jewish-National-Home Palestine would also have meant that the Arab People would have received almost the whole of the Ottoman inheritance. That result would have been unacceptable to David Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and their peers, because they clearly understood that the claim to self-determination of the Jewish People was no less compelling than that of the Arab People.
The Paris decision-makers strongly believed that they had also done justice to the claims of the Arab People whom they had freed from 400 years of Turkish rule and helped on the road to independence via the creation or recognition of almost a dozen new Arab States on territory that had formerly belonged to the Ottoman sultan.
Moreover, the decision to create Jewish-National-Home Palestine did not result in the displacement of any Arabs. To the contrary, from 1922 until 1948, the Arab population of Jewish-National-Home Palestine almost tripled, while the Jewish population multiplied eight times. The later problem of Arab refugees (about 736,000) from Jewish-National-Home Palestine and Jewish refugees (about 850,000) from Arab countries only emerged from May 1948, when local Arabs allied with several neighbouring Arab States to launch a war to exterminate the Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Like the Greek People or the Han Chinese People, the Jewish People has kept the same name and subjective-objective national identity, in each and every century, since ancient times. By contrast, the first steps towards a distinct, subjective-objective Palestinian Arab identity were taken only after the international community had already created a new country called “Palestine” to serve as “a national home for the Jewish People”. Thus, the continuing subjective-objective national identity of the Jewish People and the creation of Jewish-National-Home Palestine were both preconditions for the subsequent evolution of a distinct, subjective-objective Palestinian Arab identity. This logical sequence reminds us that the history of Jewish-National-Home Palestine (1922-1948) and the factual existence of modern Israel are only explicable because the subjective-objective national identity of the Jewish People, and its continuous link to the lands west of the Jordan River, precede by around 3,500 years the formation of a distinct, subjective-objective Palestinian Arab identity and any articulated Palestinian Arab claim to a hypothetical Palestinian Arab State that has, in fact, never existed.
Thus, deep into the 20th century, Arab leaders themselves failed to recognize the right to self-determination of a distinct Palestinian Arab People. For example, as principal Arab leader at the 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference, Prince Feisal specifically accepted the plan to create Palestine as “a national home for the Jewish People” and his father, the Hashemite King of the Hedjaz (later part of Saudi Arabia) was party to the 1920 Sevres Treaty that explicitly stipulated that the newly-created Palestine would be “a national home for the Jewish People.”
And, decades later, the governments of Egypt and Jordan showed how little regard they had for the self-determination of a distinct Palestinian Arab People; first, by rejecting the 1947 UN plan to partition Jewish-National-Home Palestine into two new independent States, the one Jewish and the other Arab; and second, by themselves failing to create a new Palestinian Arab State, between 1949 and 1967, when Egypt held the Gaza Strip and Jordan administered East-Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Such analysis does not deny the current existence of a distinct Palestinian Arab People; nor does it claim that such a Palestinian Arab People is today without rights. Rather, the conclusion is that there are rights on all sides, and that there should be a peaceful process that respectfully reconciles the rights of the Palestinian Arab People with the prior rights of the Jewish People.
no image specified
Now living in South China, Allen Z. Hertz was formerly a senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada’s Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. Earlier he taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. Allen was born in Montreal, where he studied history and languages at McGill University. He later did graduate work in European and Ottoman history at Columbia University and subsequently earned law degrees from Cambridge University and the University of Toronto. His daughters Tamar and Robyn live in Montreal.
Posted by Michelle Nevada (Michelle_Nevada@yahoo.com) at 8:15 AM 0 comments
Comment by yamit82 — April 30, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Aboriginal Rights to Israel
Yamit, you can take my word for it. The Jewish people have aboriginal rights to all of Israel.
From the Jordan River to the Mediterranian, including Golan Heights, Gaza and Sinai.
For all intents purposes it should be noted that henceforce all Arabs, Palestinians should evacuate all the territory mentioned.
In conclusion if any other country disputes this, close your fist and raise your middle finger, this is a universal recognized symbol that require no words other than f— you, if necessary.
Comment by rongrand — April 30, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
The American Public Opposes Israeli Settlements…
While the American Congress pumps out resolutions declaring that Israel can do whatever it wants to whoever it wants and generally tripping over itself to suck money out of AIPAC’s teats, the American public has steadily moved to a more sensible …
Trackback by Prose Before Hos — April 30, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
[...] the Geneva Convention applies and that such convention makes the settlements illegal. My article, The Real Tragedy in Israel., argues persuasively that both contentions are [...]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Justice For All — May 3, 2009 @ 7:54 am
[...] Ted Belman added an interesting post today on Israpundit » Blog Archive » The Real Tragedy in IsraelHere’s a small readingLike other Peoples, the Jewish People has a right to self-determination. Though the self-determination of the Arab People is expressed via twenty-one Arab countries, Israel is the sole expression of the self-determination of the Jewish … [...]
Pingback by Topics about Arab » Israpundit » Blog Archive » The Real Tragedy in Israel — May 7, 2009 @ 2:30 pm